Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

BOESSENECKER v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., C 13 0491 MMC. (2014)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20140618944 Visitors: 22
Filed: Jun. 17, 2014
Latest Update: Jun. 17, 2014
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE HEARING DATE AND DEADLINE TO OPPOSE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT MAXINE M. CHESNEY, District Judge. Plaintiffs JOSEPH and LINDA BOESSENECKER ("Plaintiffs") and Defendants JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. ("Chase") (collectively, the "Parties"), by and through their counsel of record, hereby stipulate and agree as follows: WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint (the "Motion") on June 4, 2014
More

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE HEARING DATE AND DEADLINE TO OPPOSE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

MAXINE M. CHESNEY, District Judge.

Plaintiffs JOSEPH and LINDA BOESSENECKER ("Plaintiffs") and Defendants JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. ("Chase") (collectively, the "Parties"), by and through their counsel of record, hereby stipulate and agree as follows:

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint (the "Motion") on June 4, 2014, and the Motion hearing date is currently scheduled for June 27, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 7 of the above-entitled Court, Judge Maxine M. Chesney presiding;

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs did not provide Chase with sufficient notice of the Motion hearing date pursuant to Local Rule 7-2.

WHEREAS, Chase's deadline to file an Opposition to the Motion is currently June 17, 2014;

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs' deadline to file a Reply in support of the Motion is currently June 24, 2014; and

WHEREAS, the Parties are currently engaged in settlement discussions and therefore wish to continue the above deadlines, in the interest of judicial economy and to facilitate settlement discussions;

NOW THEREFORE, the Parties stipulate and agree as follows:

The Parties request that the hearing on the Motion be continued to August 1, 2014, with Chase's Opposition due on July 18, 2014, and Plaintiffs' Reply due on July 25, 2014.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

I, Jessica Luhrs attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from each of the signatories. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Pursuant to the stipulation of the Parties and good cause appearing, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint shall be continued to August 8 2014 at 9:00 a.m.;1

2. Chase's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint shall be due on July 18, 2014; and

3. Plaintiffs' Reply in support of their Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint shall be due on July 25, 2014.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. The hearing date selected by the parties, August 1, 2014, is one week after the date they selected for the reply and, consequently, is not in compliance with the Civil Local Rules of this District, which contemplate a period of at least 14 days between the filing of a reply and the hearing date. See Civil L.R. 7-2(a) (providing motion must be noticed for hearing "not less than 35 days after service of the motion"); Civil L.R. 7-3(a)-(c) (requiring opposition to be filed "not more than 14 days after the motion was filed" and reply to be filed "not more than 7 days after the opposition was due").
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer