Filed: Mar. 29, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 29, 2017
Summary: FURTHER STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT Re: Dkt. 21 HOWARD R. LLOYD , Magistrate Judge . TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT, AND TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: This stipulation ("Stipulation") is entered into by the undersigned counsel for defendant Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. ("SPS" or "Defendant") and the undersigned counsel for plaintiffs Pablo T. Ratuita and Lourdes Ratuita ("Plaintiffs") (together with SPS, the "Parties").
Summary: FURTHER STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT Re: Dkt. 21 HOWARD R. LLOYD , Magistrate Judge . TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT, AND TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: This stipulation ("Stipulation") is entered into by the undersigned counsel for defendant Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. ("SPS" or "Defendant") and the undersigned counsel for plaintiffs Pablo T. Ratuita and Lourdes Ratuita ("Plaintiffs") (together with SPS, the "Parties"). R..
More
FURTHER STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
Re: Dkt. 21
HOWARD R. LLOYD, Magistrate Judge.
TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT, AND TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
This stipulation ("Stipulation") is entered into by the undersigned counsel for defendant Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. ("SPS" or "Defendant") and the undersigned counsel for plaintiffs Pablo T. Ratuita and Lourdes Ratuita ("Plaintiffs") (together with SPS, the "Parties").
RECITALS
WHEREAS, on November 18, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in Santa Clara County Superior Court in the case entitled Ratuita v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., et al, Case No. 16CV302844.
WHEREAS, on December 20, 2016, Defendant SPS filed a Notice of Removal with this Court.
WHEREAS, Defendant's response is currently due March 27, 2017.
WHEREAS, two previous extensions have been sought and granted.
WHEREAS, the parties have been engaged in good faith negotiations and continue to work towards early resolution of the matter. Proceeding with litigation at this stage would be costly and create an unnecessary burden on the Courts and Parties, and Parties believe good cause exists for a proposed continuance so Parties can continue to work towards settlement.
WHEREAS Plaintiffs and Defendant, by and through their counsel of record, hereby STIPULATE to an additional thirty (30) day extension of time for Defendant to respond to Plaintiffs' Complaint. This will provide the time necessary for parties to continue to engage in meaningful settlement discussions and attempt to informally resolve the matter.
FOR GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, THE PARTIES STIPULATE AS FOLLOWS:
1. The date by which Defendants shall respond to Plaintiffs' Complaint shall be extended to April 26, 2017.
2. All related deadlines shall be continued accordingly.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
ATTESTATION OF SIGNATURE:
I attest under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that I have received the concurrence in the filing of this document from the listed signatories as required by Local Rule 5.1(i)(3).
