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)

Download PDF
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 (702) 475-7964; Fax: (702) 946-1345 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

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?