Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY v. REO INVESTMENT ADVISORS V LLC, 2:17-cv-00694-JAD-PAL. (2017)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20170714f10 Visitors: 7
Filed: Jul. 12, 2017
Latest Update: Jul. 12, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO FILE OPPOSITION TO HERITAGE ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION'S MOTION TO DISMISS [First Request] JENNIFER A. DORSEY , District Judge . Plaintiff, DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS INDENTURE TRUSTEE OF THE AAMES MORTGAGE INVESTMENT TRUST 2004-1, (hereinafter "Deutsche Bank" or "Plaintiff"), by and through its attorneys of record, Dana Jonathon Nitz, Esq. and Yanxiong Li, Esq., of the law firm of Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP and Defendant, HERITA
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO FILE OPPOSITION TO HERITAGE ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION'S MOTION TO DISMISS

[First Request]

Plaintiff, DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS INDENTURE TRUSTEE OF THE AAMES MORTGAGE INVESTMENT TRUST 2004-1, (hereinafter "Deutsche Bank" or "Plaintiff"), by and through its attorneys of record, Dana Jonathon Nitz, Esq. and Yanxiong Li, Esq., of the law firm of Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP and Defendant, HERITAGE ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION (hereinafter "HOA" and collectively with "Deutsche Bank" as the "Parties"), by and through its attorneys of record, Wing Y. Wong, Esq. and Brian K. Walters, Esq., of the law firm of Gordon Rees, LLP hereby stipulate and agree to extend the deadline for Deutsche Bank to file its Opposition to HOA's Motion to Dismiss ("Motion") up to and including July 19, 2017.

Plaintiff filed its Complaint on March 8, 2017 [ECF No. 1], to which HOA responded by filing a Motion to Dismiss on June 30, 2017 [ECF No. 21]. The current deadline for Plaintiff to file its Opposition to HOA's Motion is July 14, 2017.

Since the HOA filed its Motion, the Parties were engaged in substantive discussions regarding the prospect of staying or dismissing, without prejudice, Plaintiff's claims against the HOA in this matter. Such a resolution would have avoided the need for further briefing by the Parties. Regrettably, these discussions have recently reached an impasse. Plaintiff intends to file a response to HOA's Motion as a result, and Parties are agreeable to allow Plaintiff a short extension of time to adequately address the substantial arguments made in HOA's Motion.

Therefore, good cause exists for this short extension. This is the first request for an extension of time and is not intended to cause delay or prejudice to any party.

ORDER

Based on the foregoing Stipulation by and between the parties, and good cause appearing, IT IS SO ORDERED.

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