CLASS ACTION ORDER APPROVING THIRD STIPULATION TO AMEND BRIEFING SCHEDULE AS TO MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (L.R. 6-1(b), 6-2)

BETH LABSON FREEMAN, District Judge.

Pursuant to Local Rules 6-1(b) and 6-2, Plaintiffs Victor P. Giotta and Loralee Giotta ("the Giottas"), Defendants Ocwen Financial Corporation ("OFC"), Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, ("OLS"), William C. Erbey ("Erbey"), and Altisource Solutions, Inc. ("ASI") (collectively, the "Parties") hereby respectfully stipulate and jointly request that the Court modify the briefing schedule as to Defendants consolidated motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.

RECITALS

1. This action was commenced on February 9, 2015. (Dkt. 1).

2. On June 19, 2015, the Parties filed a Stipulation to Extend Time to Respond to the Amended Complaint, Modify Briefing Schedule, and for Relief from Stipulated Order Setting Case Management Conference. The Court issued an order approving the stipulation and modified schedule on June 22, 2015. (Dkt. 50).

3. On September 17, 2015, the Court heard Defendants' respective motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint.

4. During the September 17, 2015 hearing, the Court expressed that it disfavored the filing of separate motions on behalf of each named Defendant.

5. On December 11, 2015, this Court issued its Order 1) denying Defendant Erbey's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, 2) granting in part and denying in part Defendant Erbey's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, 3) granting in part and denying in part Ocwen defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, 4) granting defendant ASI's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and 5) granting Plaintiffs leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. (Dkt. 74).

6. On December 29, 2015, the Parties filed a Stipulation to Extend Time to Respond to Second Amended Complaint, Modify Briefing Schedule, and for Relief From Order Setting Case Management Conference. The Court issued an order approving the stipulation and modified schedule on December 29, 2015. (Dkt. 77).

7. On January 15, 2016, Plaintiffs filed the Second Amended Complaint.

8. On February 2, 2016, the Parties filed a Stipulation to Amend Briefing Schedule as to Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint.

9. On February 3, 2016, the Court issued an Order granting the Parties' request to file consolidated briefing but denying the Parties' request to modify the briefing schedule. The Court stated that the proposed briefing schedule would not give the court adequate time to read and consider briefing of the length proposed.

10. The Court stated it "would entertain a stipulated request to continue the hearing date."

11. Pursuant to the Court's calendar and scheduling notes, counsel for Altisource confirmed with the Court's calendar clerk that May 19, 2016, was currently available as a hearing date on the Court's calendar. The parties thereafter stipulated to that hearing date.

12. On February 11, 2016, the Court requested that the parties revise the stipulated schedule to set the hearing for June 9, 2016. The parties have agreed to do so.

13. While Plaintiffs have been willing to try to accommodate Defendants' request for additional time in a manner that is also acceptable to the Court, Plaintiffs are concerned that moving the hearing date much beyond June 9, 2016 would create too much of a delay. However, the Parties are mindful that the Court desires additional time to consider this briefing once submitted, and believe that the current proposed briefing and hearing schedule will not unduly delay this action. The proposed and agreed-to dates below are the product of negotiation between the Parties, and allow both additional time for the Court to review the Defendants' planned consolidated motion, while also allowing the parties additional time to adequately address the complex issues in this case. Pursuant to the foregoing, the Parties hereby stipulate and agree to the following modification and request the Court's approval of their stipulation to the proposed briefing schedule as follows:

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), the filing attorney attests that he has obtained concurrence regarding the filing of this document from the indicated signatories to the document.

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.