Diaz et al v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association
Filing
11
AMENDED Second Stipulation and Order to Extend Time for Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. to Respond to the Complaint. Deadline for defendant to respond to the complaint is extended to 01/12/2018. Signed by Judge Laurel Beeler on 01/03/2018. (ejkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/3/2018)
1 MARY KATE SULLIVAN (State Bar No. 180203)
mks@severson.com
2 ALISA A. GIVENTAL (State Bar No. 273551)
aag@severson.com
3 TARA MOHSENI (State Bar No. 313080)
tm@severson.com
4 SEVERSON & WERSON
A Professional Corporation
5 One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2600
San Francisco, California 94111
6 Telephone: (415) 398-3344
Facsimile: (415) 956-0439
7
Attorneys for DEFENDANT
8 WELL FARGO BANK, N.A.
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
RICARDO DIAZ AND MARIA ELENA
12 DIAZ,
13
Plaintiffs,
14
vs.
Case No. 3:17-cv-06968-LB
SECOND STIPULATION TO EXTEND
TIME FOR DEFENDANT WELLS
FARGO BANK, N.A. TO RESPOND TO
THE COMPLAINT; [PROPOSED]
ORDER
15
WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL
16 ASSOCIATION, and DOES 1 through 20,
inclusive,
17
Defendants.
18
19
The Hon. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler
Action Filed:
November 6, 2017
Plaintiffs Ricardo Diaz and Maria Elena Diaz (“Plaintiffs”) and defendant WELLS
20 FARGO BANK, N.A. (“Defendant”), hereby stipulate as follows:
21
RECITALS
22
1.
Whereas, Plaintiffs filed this action against Defendant in the Superior Court of
23 California, County of Contra Costa on November 3, 2017 and served Defendant on November 6,
24 2017.
25
2.
Whereas, Defendant removed the state court action to this Court on December 6,
27
3.
Whereas, Defendant’s deadline to respond to the complaint is December 13, 2017.
28
4.
26 2017.
Whereas, in order to evaluate Plaintiffs’ claims and explore early resolution of this
3:17-cv-06968-LB
55002.0543/11034527.1
1
SECOND STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. TO RESPOND
TO THE COMPLAINT; [PROPOSED] ORDER
1 action, the parties agreed to extend Defendant’s response deadline to January 3, 2018.
2
5.
Whereas, Defendant is continuing its investigation into the allegations in the
3 Complaint and requested, and Plaintiff agreed, to an additional extension for the response to the
4 Complaint to be filed on or before January 12, 2018.
5
6.
Whereas, this is the second request for an extension in this action. No other
6 deadlines will be affected by this stipulation, as no other deadlines have yet been set by the Court.
7
7.
In light of the foregoing, the parties therefore stipulate and agree that Defendant
8 shall have through and including January 12, 2018 to respond to the complaint.
9
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
10 DATED: January 2, 2018
11
SEVERSON & WERSON
A Professional Corporation
12
By:
13
/s/ Alisa A. Givental
Alisa A. Givental
14
Attorneys for DEFENDANTS WELLS FARGO BANK,
N.A.
15
16
17 DATED: January 2, 2018
ALBERT E. CORDOVA, APC
18
19
By:
20
/s/ Albert E. Cordova
Albert E. Cordova
Attorneys for Plaintiff RICARDO DIAZ AND MARIA
ELENA DIAZ
21
22
23 Pursuant to Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I – Alisa A. Givental – attest that concurrence in the filing of this
document has been obtained from Albert E. Cordova. /s/ Alisa A. Givental
24
25
26
27
28
3:17-cv-06968-LB
2
SECOND STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. TO RESPOND
TO THE COMPLAINT; [PROPOSED] ORDER
55002.0543/11034527.1
1
2
[PROPOSED] ORDER
Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing, Wells Fargo Bank,
3 N.A.’s deadline to respond to plaintiff Lana Imes’s First Amended Complaint is hereby continued
January 12, 2018
4 to July 26, 2017. No other deadlines shall be affected by this Order.
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
January 3, 2018
7 DATE: _______________
8
______________________________________
MAGISTRATE JUDGE LAUREL BEELER
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3:17-cv-06968-LB
3
SECOND STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. TO RESPOND
TO THE COMPLAINT; [PROPOSED] ORDER
55002.0543/11034527.1
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?