Ditech Financial LLC v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC, 2:15-cv-02381-GMN-VCF. (2016)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20160601c76
Visitors: 6
Filed: May 27, 2016
Latest Update: May 27, 2016
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT SFR INVESTMENT POOL 1, LLC'S MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 20 FIRST REQUEST GLORIA M. NAVARRO , District Judge . Plaintiffs Ditech Financial LLC, Federal National Mortgage Association, and Federal Housing Finance Agency (collectively the "Plaintiffs") and Defendant SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC ("SFR"), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby agree and stipulate as follows: IT IS HEREBY AGREED AND STIPULATE
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT SFR INVESTMENT POOL 1, LLC'S MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 20 FIRST REQUEST GLORIA M. NAVARRO , District Judge . Plaintiffs Ditech Financial LLC, Federal National Mortgage Association, and Federal Housing Finance Agency (collectively the "Plaintiffs") and Defendant SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC ("SFR"), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby agree and stipulate as follows: IT IS HEREBY AGREED AND STIPULATED..
More
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT SFR INVESTMENT POOL 1, LLC'S MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 20
FIRST REQUEST
GLORIA M. NAVARRO, District Judge.
Plaintiffs Ditech Financial LLC, Federal National Mortgage Association, and Federal Housing Finance Agency (collectively the "Plaintiffs") and Defendant SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC ("SFR"), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby agree and stipulate as follows:
IT IS HEREBY AGREED AND STIPULATED that the deadline for the Plaintiffs to file their response to SFR's Motion to Dismiss is extended from May 31, 2016 to June 13, 2016. SFR shall have until June 27, 2016 to file a reply.
This extension is appropriate because counsel for the parties are involved in dozens of related cases pending in this District and in state court and are facing deadlines in many of these cases as well.
This minimal extension of time will not prejudice any party and will not cause delay in these proceedings. This is the Plaintiffs' first request for an extension of time regarding their response to SFR's Motion.
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
