Bell et al v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.

Filing 10

ORDER Granting 8 Amended Stipulation for Extension of Time (Second Request). Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. answer due 4/20/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 4/10/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

1
2
3
4
5

WRIGHT, FINLAY & ZAK, LLP
Matthew S. Carter, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 9524
7785 W. Sahara Avenue, Suite 200
Las Vegas, Nevada 89117
[phone]; Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant, Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7
8
9
10

DAVID A. BELL, GAIL P. BELL, and others
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
vs.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.,
Defendant.

Case No.: 2:18-cv-00475-JAD-NJK
AMENDED STIPULATION AND
ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR
SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING,
INC. TO FILE ITS RESPONSE TO THE
COMPLAINT
(SECOND REQUEST)

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED between Plaintiffs, David A. Bell and Gail P. Bell
(“Plaintiffs”), by and through their attorneys of record, David H. Krieger, Esq. of the law firm
Haines & Krieger, LLC and Matthew I. Knepper, Esq. of the law firm Knepper & Clark LLC,
and Defendant, Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (“SPS”), by and through its attorney of record,
Matthew S. Carter, Esq. of the law firm Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP, the parties agree to extend
the deadline for SPS to file a response to the Complaint to April 20, 2018. The reason for the
requested extension is that Defendant retained its attorneys in this matter the week of April 2,

21

2018, and Defendant’s counsel was unable to fully review and respond to the complaint by the

22

original deadline of April 6, 2018. Defendant’s counsel conferred with Plaintiff’s counsel

23

regarding this issue, and Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to grant the professional courtesy of an

24
25
26

extension so that a proper response could be filed and this case progress in the most efficient
manner possible. Accordingly, the thorough preparation of the response and the resulting
efficiency of this litigation process constitute good cause for the requested extension. This

27

request is being made after the expiration of the deadline due to the court’s denial without

28

prejudice of the first request, which was timely filed before the deadline for Defendant’s

Page 1 of 3

1

response, though it did not fully explain the reasons for the extension of time to answer. Given

2

the parties’ actions to ensure that that time for filing was extended pursuant to the rules, there

3

was no failure to file a timely request under the rules. To the extent that the first request omitted

4

the reason for that request, the parties’ agreement was in good faith and any omission was the

5

result of excusable neglect.

6
7
8
9

This is the parties’ second request for an extension and is not intended to cause any delay
or prejudice to any party.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
DATED this 9th day of April, 2018.

DATED this 9th day of April, 2018.

/s/ Matthew I. Knepper, Esq.
David H. Krieger, Esq.
HAINES & KRIEGER, LLC
8985 S. Eastern Avenue, Suite 350
Henderson, Nevada 89123

/s/ Matthew S. Carter, Esq.
Matthew S. Carter, Esq.
WRIGHT, FINLAY & ZAK, LLP
7785 W. Sahara Avenue, Suite 200
Las Vegas, Nevada 89117
Attorneys for Defendant, Select Portfolio
Servicing, Inc.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Matthew I. Knepper, Esq.
Miles N. Clark, Esq.
KNEPPER & CLARK LLC
10040 W. Cheyenne Ave., Ste. 170-109
Las Vegas, NV 89129
Attorneys for Plaintiffs, David A. Bell and
Gail P. Bell
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 10, 2018

22
23
24

_________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28

Page 2 of 3