Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

PINCHUK v. CIT BANK NA, 16-cv-02986-RFB-CWH. (2017)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20170124d06 Visitors: 5
Filed: Jan. 20, 2017
Latest Update: Jan. 20, 2017
Summary: UNOPPOSED MOTION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEFENDANT CIT BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION'S TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT CARL W. HOFFMAN , Magistrate Judge . Defendant CIT Bank, N.A. (" CIT "), through its attorney Jacob Bundick, Esq. with the law firm of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, hereby moves the Court for an extension of time to through and including February 3, 2017 for CIT to answer, respond, or otherwise plead to Plaintiff Plaintiff's Complaint in this action. Plaintiff's attorney Ve
More

UNOPPOSED MOTION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEFENDANT CIT BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION'S TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

Defendant CIT Bank, N.A. ("CIT"), through its attorney Jacob Bundick, Esq. with the law firm of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, hereby moves the Court for an extension of time to through and including February 3, 2017 for CIT to answer, respond, or otherwise plead to Plaintiff Plaintiff's Complaint in this action. Plaintiff's attorney Vernon A. Nelson, Jr., Esq. has represented to the undersigned Counsel that Plaintiff has no opposition to the requested extension herein, and has agreed to the requested extension. Cause exists for the requested extension as Counsel for CIT was recently retained and requires some additional time to further review CIT's records and assess Plaintiff's Complaint.

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED THAT CIT Bank, N.A. shall have until February 3, 2017 to respond to Plaintiff's Complaint.

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