Filed: Jun. 08, 2016
Latest Update: Jun. 08, 2016
Summary: STIPULATION TO FURTHER EXTEND THE DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANTS CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC., LSF9 MASTER PARTICIPATION TRUST AND U.S. BANK, N.A. AS TRUSTEE FOR LSF9 MASTER PARTICIPATION TRUST TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT UP TO AND INCLUDING JULY 11, 2016 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS , District Judge . Plaintiff Chet Lee ("Plaintiff) and defendants Caliber Home Loans, Inc. ("Caliber"), LSF9 Master Participation Trust; and U.S. Bank, N.A. as trustee for LSF9 Master Participation Trust (erroneously sued as U.S. B
Summary: STIPULATION TO FURTHER EXTEND THE DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANTS CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC., LSF9 MASTER PARTICIPATION TRUST AND U.S. BANK, N.A. AS TRUSTEE FOR LSF9 MASTER PARTICIPATION TRUST TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT UP TO AND INCLUDING JULY 11, 2016 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS , District Judge . Plaintiff Chet Lee ("Plaintiff) and defendants Caliber Home Loans, Inc. ("Caliber"), LSF9 Master Participation Trust; and U.S. Bank, N.A. as trustee for LSF9 Master Participation Trust (erroneously sued as U.S. Ba..
More
STIPULATION TO FURTHER EXTEND THE DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANTS CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC., LSF9 MASTER PARTICIPATION TRUST AND U.S. BANK, N.A. AS TRUSTEE FOR LSF9 MASTER PARTICIPATION TRUST TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT UP TO AND INCLUDING JULY 11, 2016
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS, District Judge.
Plaintiff Chet Lee ("Plaintiff) and defendants Caliber Home Loans, Inc. ("Caliber"), LSF9 Master Participation Trust; and U.S. Bank, N.A. as trustee for LSF9 Master Participation Trust (erroneously sued as U.S. Bank Trust, N.A.) ("Defendants"), have agreed to a further extension of the deadline for Defendants' to respond to the Complaint up to and including July 11, 2016, as follows:
1. The Complaint in this action was filed by Plaintiff in Contra Costa Superior Court on March 4, 2016 (the "Complaint").
2. On or about May 3, 2016, Caliber removed the action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
3. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 81(c), governing deadlines relating to removal actions, Defendants' deadline to respond to the Complaint is May 10, 2016.
4. On May 6, 2016, Plaintiff agreed to a thirty day extension of the deadline for Defendants to respond to the Complaint up to and including June 9, 2016.
5. Plaintiff and Defendants are in the process of discussing settlement and exploring whether this matter can be resolved by a loan modification.
6. Whereas, the parties desire to continue to focus their efforts on potential resolution of this matter, rather than incurring litigation costs and expenses.
7. On May 31, 2016, Plaintiff agreed to a further extension of time, up to and including July 11, 2016, for Defendants to respond to the Complaint.
8. Whereas, the Northern District Local Rule 6-1 permits stipulations without court order to extend the time to respond to the complaint, "provided the change will not alter the date of any event or any deadline already fixed by Court order" (N.D. L.R. 6-1) and the extension does not alter the date of any event or deadline set by the Court, therefore, the parties are submitting this Stipulation without a proposed order.
THEREFORE:
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between Plaintiff and Defendants, that Defendants shall have up to and including July 11, 2016, to file and serve their response to the Complaint.
