Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Kozak v. Quality Loan Service Corporation, 3:18-cv-00232-LRII-VPC CBC. (2018)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20181004a30 Visitors: 6
Filed: Sep. 28, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 28, 2018
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANTS SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., AND WILMINGTON TRUST, N.A., AS TRUSTEE, TO FILE THEIR RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT LARRY R. HICKS , District Judge . Counsel for Plaintiffs Charles R. Kozak and Susan K. Kozak (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), and Defendants Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. ("SPS"), JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. ("Chase") and Wilmington Trust, NA, solely as successor trustee to Citibank, N.A.,
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANTS SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., AND WILMINGTON TRUST, N.A., AS TRUSTEE, TO FILE THEIR RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT

Counsel for Plaintiffs Charles R. Kozak and Susan K. Kozak (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), and Defendants Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. ("SPS"), JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. ("Chase") and Wilmington Trust, NA, solely as successor trustee to Citibank, N.A., as Trustee, f/b/o the registered holders of Structured Asset Mortgage Investments II Trust 2007-AR6, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-AR6 ("Wilmington"), continue to explore whether the claims in the above captioned action may be resolved informally. In light of the foregoing, Plaintiffs, SPS, Chase and Wilmington, by and through their respective undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate as follows (which is the third stipulated request on behalf of SPS, and the second stipulated request on behalf of Chase and Wilmington):

1. SPS, Chase and Wilmington shall have through and including Wednesday, August 15, 2018 to file a response to Plaintiffs' Complaint on file in this matter.

This request for an additional extension of time to respond to the Complaint is not intended to cause any delay or prejudice to any party, but is to allow the parties additional time to discuss the potential settlement of the claims in this matter.

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED., nunc pro tunc.

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