SFR Investments Pool 1 LLC, v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, et al

Filing 30

ORDER Granting 29 Stipulation to Extend Deadlines re 20 Motion to Dismiss. Replies due by 8/2/2022. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 8/1/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KF)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 VANESSA M. TURLEY, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 14635 TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP 8985 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. 200 Las Vegas, NV 89123 (Nevada Office) Tele: (470) 832-5572 Fax: (404) 962-6800 vanessa.turley@troutman.com 5 6 7 8 TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP 600 Peachtree St. NE #3000 Atlanta, GA 30308 (Corporate Office) Attorneys for Defendant Nationstar Mortgage LLC, dba Mr. Cooper and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 12 13 SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC, 14 15 16 17 Plaintiff, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC d/b/a MR. COOPER; FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION; DOES I through X; and ROE BUSINESS ENTITIES I through X, inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-00531-APG-VCF STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND RESPONSE DEADLINE (SECOND REQUEST) 18 Defendants. 19 20 Plaintiff, SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC (“SFR”) and Defendants, Nationstar Mortgage, 21 LLC d/b/a Mr. Cooper (“Nationstar”) and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (‘Freddie 22 Mac”) (collectively, the “Parties”), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate 23 24 25 and agree to extend the date for Nationstar and Freddie Mac to file a Reply in Support of their Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 20]. The parties further stipulate and agree that the foreclosure sale 26 on the subject property be postponed until this Court rules on SFR’s Motion. The parties finally 27 stipulate and agree that the foreclosure sale on the subject property be postponed until this Court 28 128422419 1 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND RESPONSE DEADLINE (SECOND REQUEST) 1 rules on SFR’s Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction 2 (“Motion”) [ECF No. 5, 6]. 3 In support of the stipulation, the Parties state as follows: 4 1. On March 28, 2022, SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC (“SFR”) filed the Complaint in 5 the instant matter. [ECF No 1]. 6 7 2. Order and Preliminary Injunction (“Motion”). [ECF No. 5, 6]. 8 9 On March 29, 2022, SFR filed an Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining 3. 10 On March 30, 2022, this Court entered a minute order in chambers setting a deadline for Defendants to respond to the Motion no later than Monday, April 4, 2022 at 11 12:00 p.m. and further ordering a hearing on the Motion for Tuesday, April 5, 2022, 12 at 10:00 a.m. [ECF No. 7]. Defendants were served with the Order and all other 13 documents related to the matter on the same day. 14 15 4. On April 4, 2022, this Court entered an order extending the deadline for Nationstar 16 to respond to the motion for preliminary injunction to April 13, 2022, setting the 17 deadline for SFR to file a reply in support of its motion for seven days later, and 18 setting the hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction on April 28, 2022 at 19 10:30 AM. [ECF No. 11]. 20 21 5. On April 29th, 2022, the Parties agreed and stipulated that Defendants would have 22 until May 4, 2022, to file a response to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The 23 Order further allowed the Motion to be briefed in the normal course pursuant to LR 24 7-2. [ECF No. 13]. 25 6. 26 On May 25, 2022, the Parties, again, agreed and stipulated the Defendants would have until June 1, 2022, to file a response to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction, 27 allowing counsel adequate time to evaluate the case and respond to the Motion and 28 128422419 2 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND RESPONSE DEADLINE (SECOND REQUEST) 1 to further allow the Motion to be briefed in the normal cause pursuant to LR7-2. 2 [ECF No. 17]. 3 7. On June 6, 2022, the Parties agreed and stipulated that Defendants would have until 4 June 24, 2022, to file a response to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction and a 5 responsive pleading to the Complaint. Pursuant to LR 7-2, SFR would have seven 6 7 days after service of Defendants’ Response to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction 8 to file a reply in support of its Motion. [ECF No. 19]. 9 8. Defendants filed their Opposition to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction and 10 Motion to Dismiss on June 24, 2022. [ECF No.’s 20, 21]. 11 9. SFR filed its reply in support of the Motion for Preliminary Injunction on June 30, 12 2022 [ECF No. 22]. 13 10. 14 SFR filed its Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss on July 19, 2022. [ECF No. 26]. 15 16 11. 17 On July 27, 2022, the Court entered an Order granting the parties’ Stipulation and Order to Extend Response Deadline where Defendants’ Reply was due on July 29, 18 2022. [ECF No. 28]. 19 12. At the present time, the hearing originally set for April 28, 2022, at 10:30 a.m., has 20 been vacated and has yet to be reset. 21 13. 22 Finally, the parties agree that Defendants shall have until August 2, 2022, to file a Reply to their Motion to Dismiss. 23 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 128422419 3 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND RESPONSE DEADLINE (SECOND REQUEST) 1 14. 2 Both parties represent this stipulation is not made with any intent to delay or prejudice either party. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 DATED this 29th day of July, 2022. DATED this 29th day of July, 2022. Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP Hanks Law Group /s/ Vanessa M. Turley Vanessa M. Turley, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 14635 8985 S. Eastern Avenue, Suite 200 Las Vegas, NV 89123 Counsel for Nationstar Mortgage, LLC dba Mr. Cooper and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation /s/ Chantel Schimming Chantel M. Schimming, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 8886 7625 Dean Martin Drive, Suite 110 Las Vegas, NV 89139 Counsel for SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC 10 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE DATED: August 1, 2022 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 128422419 4 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND RESPONSE DEADLINE (SECOND REQUEST)

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?