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)

Download PDF
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?