CECICH v. CHASE BANK USA, N.A., 2:17-CV-01435-RFB-CWH. (2017)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20170711b66
Visitors: 2
Filed: Jul. 07, 2017
Latest Update: Jul. 07, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT (First Request) CARL W. HOFFMAN , Magistrate Judge . Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.'s ("Chase") 1 response to plaintiff Mark S. Cecich's complaint currently is due on July 6, 2017. Chase has requested, and Plaintiff has agreed, that Chase has up to and including August 7, 2017 to respond to the complaint, to provide time for Chase to investigate plaintiff's allegations and for the p
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT (First Request) CARL W. HOFFMAN , Magistrate Judge . Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.'s ("Chase") 1 response to plaintiff Mark S. Cecich's complaint currently is due on July 6, 2017. Chase has requested, and Plaintiff has agreed, that Chase has up to and including August 7, 2017 to respond to the complaint, to provide time for Chase to investigate plaintiff's allegations and for the pa..
More
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
(First Request)
CARL W. HOFFMAN, Magistrate Judge.
Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.'s ("Chase")1 response to plaintiff Mark S. Cecich's complaint currently is due on July 6, 2017. Chase has requested, and Plaintiff has agreed, that Chase has up to and including August 7, 2017 to respond to the complaint, to provide time for Chase to investigate plaintiff's allegations and for the parties to discuss the possibility of an early resolution of the claims asserted against Chase.
This is the first request for such an extension, and it is made in good faith and not for purposes of delay.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Plaintiff erroneously named "Chase Bank USA, N.A." as a defendant, rather than "JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A."
Source: Leagle
