ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART JOINT MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

[ECF No. 89]

CYNTHIA BASHANT, District Judge.

The parties have jointly moved to extend the time for Defendant to respond to the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") from August 2, 2018 to August 23, 2018. (ECF No. 89.) The parties in Pemberton have also filed a similar stipulation, which requests an extension of time for the Defendant to respond to the SAC in that case to August 23, 2018. See Pemberton v. Nationstar Mortgage LC, No. 14-cv-1024-BAS-WVG, No. 14-cv-1024-BAS-WVG, ECF No. 78 (S.D. Cal. July 31, 2018). The aim of the parties is to establish "the same briefing schedule" in both cases "to allow Rovai to file a single response to any motion(s) to dismiss." (ECF No. 89 at 2.) In the event that Defendant moves to dismiss a third time, the parties have also jointly stipulated to a briefing schedule.

Having considered the motion, the Court finds that there is good cause insofar as the parties request an extension of time for Defendant to respond to the SAC. Defendant shall respond to the SAC no later than August 23, 2018. Given the length of time this case has been pending at the pleading stage, no further extensions will be granted.

To the extent the parties intended to request that the Court adopt the briefing schedule identified in the motion as part of this order, the Court does not find there is good cause to do so and DENIES the motion to that extent. It is speculative whether Defendant will move to dismiss and the Court will not issue a schedule that may not be necessary. In the event that Defendant does move, the parties are free to advise the Court of a stipulated briefing schedule and request court approval at that point.

IT IS SO ORDERED.