Chappelle et al v. Suntrust Mortgage, Inc. et al
Filing
42
ORDER CONTINUING COMPLIANCE HEARING. Compliance Hearing set for 4/17/2015 is CONTINUED to Friday, 4/24/2015 09:01 AM before Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 4/14/15. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/14/2015)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
CHARLES CHAPPELLE, ET AL.,
Case No. 14-cv-03745-YGR
Plaintiffs,
8
v.
9
10
SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, INC.,
ORDER CONTINUING COMPLIANCE
HEARING
Re: Dkt. No. 41
Defendant.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
In light of the parties’ joint statement filed on April 10, 2015 (Dkt. No. 41), the Court
13
hereby CONTINUES the compliance hearing set for April 17, 2015 to Friday, April 24, 2015, on
14
the Court’s 9:01 a.m. calendar, in the Federal Courthouse, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California,
15
Courtroom 1.
16
The Court cannot discern from the parties’ joint statement (Dkt. No. 41) what necessary
17
information is missing and the specifics of the dispute as to the sufficiency of the proffer that has
18
been made. Thus, by April 17, 2015, the parties shall file either: (1) an updated joint statement
19
advising the Court that all necessary information has been provided or outlining the specifics of
20
the dispute regarding the sufficiency of information provided; or (2) a one-page joint statement
21
setting forth an explanation for their failure to comply. If compliance is complete, the parties need
22
not appear and the compliance hearing will be taken off calendar. Telephonic appearances will be
23
allowed if the parties have submitted a Joint Statement in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may
24
result in sanctions.
25
26
27
28
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 14, 2015
______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
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?