U.S. Bank, National Association, et al v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC, et al
Filing
49
ORDER Granting 48 Second Stipulation to Extend Deadlines. Discovery due by 8/7/2018. Motions due by 9/6/2018. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 10/6/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 6/11/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)
Case 2:17-cv-01319-JCM-GWF Document 48 Filed 06/08/18 Page 1 of 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
Cynthia L. Alexander, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 6718
Email: calexander@dickinson-wright.com
Taylor Anello, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 12881
Email: tannello@dickinson-wright.com
8363 West Sunset Road, Suite 200
Las Vegas, Nevada 89113-2210
Tel: (702) 550-4400
Fax: (702) 382-1661
Attorneys for Plaintiffs U.S. Bank, National Association,
as Trustee for GSAA 2006-1 and SunTrust Mortgage, Inc.
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
11
12
13
14
U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
as Trustee for GSAA2006-1, an Ohio
Company; SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, INC.,
a Virginia Corporation
Plaintiffs,
15
16
17
18
19
20
v.
SFR INVESTMENT POOL 1, LLC, a Nevada
limited liability company; SAN MARINO
PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, a
Nevada non-profit corporation
Defendants.
) CASE NO.: 2:17 cv-01319-JCM-GWF
)
)
)
)
)
)
) STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND
)
DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINE,
)
LIMITED EXTENSION OF THE
)
DISCOVERY DEADLINE AND TO
) AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER [ECF NO.
)
30]
)
(SECOND REQUEST)
)
)
21
Pursuant to LR IA 6-1, LR 7-1, and LR 26-4, Plaintiffs U.S. Bank, National Association, as
22
Trustee for GSAA 2006-1 and SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. (“Plaintiffs”) through undersigned counsel,
23
the law firm of Dickinson Wright, PLLC, Defendant SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC (“SFR”) through
24
undersigned counsel, the law firm of Kim Gilbert Ebron, and Defendant San Marino Property
25
Owners Association (“San Marino”), the law firm Lipson Neilson Cole Seltzer & Garin PC hereby
26
agree and stipulate to extend the case management deadlines as set forth below. This is the parties’
27
second request to amend the discovery deadlines and scheduling order.
28
-1-
Case 2:17-cv-01319-JCM-GWF Document 48 Filed 06/08/18 Page 2 of 4
1
A.
BACKGROUND STATEMENT AND COMPLETED DISCOVERY:
2
Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on May 10, 2017 in the United States District Court for the
3
District of Nevada. On September 12, 2017, the Court entered its initial scheduling order in this case.
4
(ECF No. 30.) Plaintiffs retained new counsel in this matter and filed the Substitution of Counsel on
5
February 12, 2018, necessitating the first request for extension so that new counsel could have time
6
to review the matter. Since that date, the parties have actively engaged in discovery, as described
7
below. This is the second request for an extension of the discovery deadlines, which is limited to a
8
request for an additional ninety (90) days (approximate) from the present discovery cut-off date of
9
May 11, 2017 solely for the purpose of taking Plaintiffs’ 30(b)(6) depositions and to conduct limited
10
written discovery directed to Plaintiffs’ claims.
11
The following discovery has been completed:
12
Plaintiffs served initial disclosures on September 7, 2017.
13
Defendant SFR served initial disclosures on September 6, 2017.
14
Defendant San Marino served initial disclosures on September 26, 2017.
15
Plaintiffs served its Second Supplemental Disclosures on May 11, 2018 and its Third
16
Supplemental Disclosures on May 14, 2018.
17
Defendant San Marino has served Plaintiffs with interrogatories, request for production and
18
request for admission (“San Marino Discovery Requests”) on November 7, 2017. Plaintiffs have
19
responded to the San Marino Discovery Requests.
20
Defendant/Counterclaimant SFR served US Bank and SunTrust with interrogatories, request
21
for production and request for admission (“SFR Discovery Requests”) on February 7, 2018. US
22
Bank and SunTrust responded to the SFR Discovery Requests
23
Defendant/Counterclaimant SFR have agreed to take the Rule 30(b)(6) Depositions of
24
Plaintiffs on June 28, 2018. This was the date that was mutually agreeable to the parties, including
25
Plaintiff’s out of state deponents.
26
B.
27
At this point, the only discovery that needs to be completed is the 30(b)(6) depositions of
28
Plaintiffs, which are going forward on June 28, 2018, and limited written discovery regarding the
DESCRIPTION OF DISCOVERY TO BE COMPLETED:
-2-
Case 2:17-cv-01319-JCM-GWF Document 48 Filed 06/08/18 Page 3 of 4
1
Plaintiffs’ claims. As such, the parties request a ninety (90) day (approximate) extension of the
2
discovery deadline for the limited purpose of taking Plaintiffs’ 30(b)(6) depositions. All other
3
discovery has been completed.
4
5
C.
REASONS WHY REMAINING DISCOVERY WAS NOT COMPLETED AND
EXTENSION OF DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINE IS NECESSARY:
6
As explained above, this extension is for the limited purpose of taking the Rule 30(b)(6)
7
depositions of Plaintiffs and conducting limited written discovery to Plaintiffs related to their claims.
8
Good cause exists to extend the deadlines because Plaintiffs’ witnesses are out-of-state and counsel
9
for all parties have to coordinate schedules. The failure to extend the discovery deadline prior to the
10
close of discovery is due to excusable neglect, as the parties were previously unable to come to an
11
agreeable deposition date that worked with all parties’ schedules. However, that has since changed
12
and all parties are now available on June 28, 2018.
13
As the only agreeable date for the deposition that works for all parties and witnesses is June
14
28, 2018, it is necessary to extend the current dispositive motion deadline of June 8, 2018 by
15
approximately 90 days. Good cause exists to extend the dispositive motion deadline because the
16
parties wish to have this case decided on its merits with all parties having the information necessary
17
to prove their positions. This will not prejudice any party, nor will it have any effect on any of the
18
other deadlines. This request is not made in bad faith or for purposes of undue delay.
19
20
21
22
23
D.
PROPOSED
SCHEDULE
FOR
ALL
REMAINING
DISCOVERY:
The parties agree that an additional 60 days from today’s date is required to complete
discovery, and an additional 100 days is required to complete dispositive motions:
1.
Close of Discovery:
24
Current Deadline – May 11, 2018
25
Proposed Deadline – August 7, 2018
26
COMPLETING
2.
Dispositive Motion Deadline:
27
Current Deadline – June 8, 2018
28
Proposed Deadline – September 6, 2018
-3-
Case 2:17-cv-01319-JCM-GWF Document 48 Filed 06/08/18 Page 4 of 4
1
3.
Pretrial Order:
2
Current Deadline – July 6, 2018
3
Proposed Deadline – October 6, 2018
4
In the event that dispositive motions are filed, the date for filing the Joint Pretrial Order shall be
5
suspended and should be filed thirty (30) days after the decision on the dispositive motions or until
6
further order of the Court. This request is not brought for the purpose of undue delay.
7
Dated June 8, 2018
8
DICKINSON WRIGHT, PLLC
9
By: _/s/ Cynthia Alexander_________________
Cynthia L. Alexander, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 6718
Taylor Anello, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 12881
8363 West Sunset Road, Suite 200
Las Vegas, Nevada 89113-2210
Tel: (702) 550-4400
Fax: (702) 382-1661
Attorneys for Plaintiffs U.S. Bank, National
Association, as Trustee for GSAA 2006-1
and SunTrust Mortgage, Inc.
Dated June 8, 2018
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Dated June 8, 2018
Kim Gilbert Ebron
By: _/s/ Diana S Ebron__________________
Diana S. Ebron
7625 Dean Martin Drive, Suite 110
Las Vegas, NV 89139
Phone: (702) 485-3300
Fax: (702) 485-3301
Attorneys for Defendant SFR Investments
Pool 1, LLC
Lipson Neilson Cole Seltzer & Garin PC
By: __/s/ Karen Kao______________________
J. William Ebert
Nevada Bar No. 2697
Karen Kao
Nevada Bar No. 14386
9900 Covington Cross Dr., Ste. 120
Las Vegas, NV 89144
702-382-1500
Attorneys for Defendant San Marino
Property Owners Association
24
IT IS SO ORDERED:
25
26
27
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
28
DATED: 6/11/2018
LVEGAS 55969-24 230028v1
-4-
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?