JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC, 2:17-CV-00349-GMN-NJK. (2017)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20171207d63
Visitors: 19
Filed: Dec. 06, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 06, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Second Request) GLORIA M. NAVARRO , Chief District Judge . JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. ("Chase"), SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC ("SFR"), and THREE TURNBERRY PLACE ASSOCIATION ("Association") (collectively, the "parties") by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate to extend the deadline for plaintiff Chase to respond to SFR's Response to Chase's Motion for Summary Judgment [EC
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Second Request) GLORIA M. NAVARRO , Chief District Judge . JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. ("Chase"), SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC ("SFR"), and THREE TURNBERRY PLACE ASSOCIATION ("Association") (collectively, the "parties") by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate to extend the deadline for plaintiff Chase to respond to SFR's Response to Chase's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF..
More
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(Second Request)
GLORIA M. NAVARRO, Chief District Judge.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. ("Chase"), SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC ("SFR"), and THREE TURNBERRY PLACE ASSOCIATION ("Association") (collectively, the "parties") by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate to extend the deadline for plaintiff Chase to respond to SFR's Response to Chase's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 46] as follows:
1. SFR filed its Response to Chase's Motion for Summary Judgment ("SFR's Opposition") on November 9, 2017. [ECF No. 42]. Any response is currently due on November 23, 2017. November 23, 2017 is Thanksgiving, thus the Reply of Chase would be due November 22, 2017.
2. On October 24, 2017, SFR took the deposition of Chase; Chase's review of the transcript is pending.
3. The parties have agreed that more time is necessary for Chase to respond to SFR's Opposition, as Chase had granted an extension of time to file the Opposition to November 9, 2017.
4. Based thereon, the parties agree to continue the Reply deadline to SFR's Opposition to December 8, 2017.
5. This is the second request for an extension of these deadlines, the first being SFR's request as ECF No. 44, and it is not made for the purposes of delay. The additional time requested is to allow counsel to meaningfully respond to the arguments raised in the Opposition.
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
