MAXINE M. CHESNEY, District Judge.
Plaintiff ALLAN D. GRUSHKIN ("Plaintiff"), on the one hand, and Defendant SECURITY NATIONAL PROPERTIES HOLDING COMPANY, LLC ("Defendant") (collectively, the "Parties"), on the other hand, through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate and agree as follows:
Plaintiff against Defendant in the sum of $1,737,420 ("Judgment");
The Court issued its corrected Judgment on July 17, 2015;
WHEREAS, on October 2, 2015, Defendant filed a Motion to Vacate Judgment and to Dismiss the Case for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction ("Motion");
WHEREAS, the Motion is presently set for hearing on November 20, 2015. Plaintiff's opposition to the Motion is presently due on October 16, 2015, and Defendant's Reply is due October 23, 2015;
WHEREAS, due to Plaintiff's counsel's pre-planned family vacation from October 15 through 23, 2015; and a trial set in the Sonoma County Superior Court of California beginning on November 20, 2015;
WHEREAS, Plaintiff and Defendant met and conferred regarding the date of the hearing for the Motion, and the briefing scheduled leading up to it;
NOW, THEREFORE, Plaintiff and Defendant have stipulated and agreed as follows to the hearing date on the Motion and the briefing schedule leading up to it:
1. The hearing date on the Motion shall be continued to December 4, 2015, or the first available date thereafter, as the Court's schedule will allow;
2. Plaintiff's Opposition to the Motion shall be due October 30, 2015;
3. Defendant's Reply shall be due November 6, 2015; and
4. ____________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________.
Filer's Attestation: Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1 (i)(3) regarding signatures, Ryan F. Thomas hereby attests that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained
The parties' Joint Stipulation to Continue the Hearing Date for the Motion to Vacate Judgment and to Dismiss the Case for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction is approved and the hearing is set for