Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

ROMO v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., 3:15-cv-03708-EMC. (2016)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20160330f66 Visitors: 7
Filed: Mar. 29, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 29, 2016
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: REVISION OF BRIEFING SCHEDULE EDWARD M. CHEN , District Judge . TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT AND THE HONORABLE JUDGE EDWARD M. CHEN: Having met and conferred, Plaintiffs Chris Romo and Dulia Romo (the "plaintiffs") and Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Wells Fargo") enter into the below stipulation and hereby request that the Court enter the accompanying proposed order. Plaintiffs and Wells Fargo, by and through their respective counsel, jointly stipulat
More

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: REVISION OF BRIEFING SCHEDULE

TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT AND THE HONORABLE JUDGE EDWARD M. CHEN:

Having met and conferred, Plaintiffs Chris Romo and Dulia Romo (the "plaintiffs") and Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Wells Fargo") enter into the below stipulation and hereby request that the Court enter the accompanying proposed order.

Plaintiffs and Wells Fargo, by and through their respective counsel, jointly stipulate as follows:

WHEREAS, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint on March 14, 2016;

WHEREAS the Plaintiffs intend to file an Opposition to Defendants' Motion, but Plaintiffs' counsel has been involved in extensive pre-trial preparation in a matter pending in the San Francisco Superior Court that is scheduled to begin trial on April 11, 2016, and is flying to Washington, D.C. on Friday, April 1, 2016, to be sworn in as a member of the Bar for the Supreme Court of the United States, and as a result, has not had sufficient time to prepare this Opposition;

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs' counsel requests an additional three days to file his opposition, and intends to file it on March 31, 2016;

WHEREAS, Defendants' counsel consents to Plaintiffs' request.

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-2, this is the third request in this case to modify time deadlines in this case. The parties do not think that this modification would have any meaningful impact on the schedule for this case.

NOW IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between Defendants and Plaintiffs, through their undersigned counsel of record that:

1. Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss shall be filed on March 31, 2016. 2. Defendants' Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition shall be filed on April 7, 2016. 3. The hearing date on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss — April 21, 2016 — will remain the same.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Approved as to form and content:

ORDER

Plaintiffs' counsel shall have until March 31, 2016, to file his Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, and Defendants' Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition shall be filed on April 7, 2016.

The hearing date will remain on April 21, 2016.

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