Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Jamison v. Bank of America, N.A., 2:16-cv-00422-KJM-AC. (2016)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20160909o00 Visitors: 8
Filed: Sep. 09, 2016
Latest Update: Sep. 09, 2016
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEFENDANT'S TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT AND TO SET BRIEFING AND HEARING SCHEDULE RE SAME KIMBERLY J. MUELLER , District Judge . WHEREAS, Plaintiff Cynthia A. Jamison served Defendant Bank of America, N.A. with the Amended Class Action Complaint Asserting Violations of TILA and UCL, Dkt. No. 31 (the "Amended Complaint"), in this action on July 28, 2016; WHEREAS, pursuant to Local Rule 144, the Parties stipulated to a 28-day extension to respond to th
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEFENDANT'S TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT AND TO SET BRIEFING AND HEARING SCHEDULE RE SAME

WHEREAS, Plaintiff Cynthia A. Jamison served Defendant Bank of America, N.A. with the Amended Class Action Complaint Asserting Violations of TILA and UCL, Dkt. No. 31 (the "Amended Complaint"), in this action on July 28, 2016;

WHEREAS, pursuant to Local Rule 144, the Parties stipulated to a 28-day extension to respond to the Amended Complaint through and including September 12, 2016;

WHEREAS, as the Parties have discussed, Defendant intends to respond to the Amended Complaint with a speaking motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1);

WHEREAS, on August 5, 2016, Defendant served a deposition notice with document requests for Plaintiff Jamison;

WHEREAS, following service of the notice, the Parties met and conferred on various issues, including Plaintiff's position (which Plaintiff maintains and does not waive) that Defendant's proposed responsive pleading is not appropriate;

WHEREAS, without waiving either Parties' position regarding the responsive pleading, the Parties came to an agreement regarding the production of certain documents prior to Ms. Jamison's deposition and the timing of the deposition — now scheduled (to accommodate counsel's and the witnesses' schedules) for September 20, 2016;

WHEREAS, in light of this schedule, the Parties have agreed that Defendant may have a further extension of time to respond to the Amended Complaint until and including October 21, 2016; and

WHEREAS, the Parties have further agreed to, and request the Court to enter, the following briefing schedule: Defendant's responsive pleading shall be filed and served no later than October 21, 2016; Plaintiff's opposition shall be filed and served no later than November 18, 2016; and Defendant's reply shall be filed and served no later than November 25. This schedule will not impact any other deadlines in the case, or the existing scheduling order.

ORDER

Good cause appearing, the court APPROVES the parties' stipulation to extend time and set briefing schedule (ECF No. 33). Accordingly, the court ORDERS the following briefing schedule: defendant's responsive pleading shall be filed and served no later than October 21, 2016; plaintiff's opposition shall be filed and served no later than November 18, 2016; and defendant's reply shall be filed and served no later than November 25, 2016. All other deadlines set in the court's Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order (ECF No. 22) remain in effect.

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