Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Saticoy Bay LLC, 2:17-cv-00780-RFB-GWF. (2017)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20170831e62
Visitors: 10
Filed: Aug. 30, 2017
Latest Update: Aug. 30, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THE COUNTERMOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST REQUEST) RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II , District Judge . Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Wells Fargo") and Defendants Saticoy Bay LLC, Series 1851 Hillpointe Rd ("Saticoy") and Serenade Homeowners Association ("Serenade", collectively with Wells Fargo and Saticoy, the "Parties") hereby stipulate and agree that Wells Fargo's reply in support of its Countermotion for Summary Judgment ("MSJ
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THE COUNTERMOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST REQUEST) RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II , District Judge . Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Wells Fargo") and Defendants Saticoy Bay LLC, Series 1851 Hillpointe Rd ("Saticoy") and Serenade Homeowners Association ("Serenade", collectively with Wells Fargo and Saticoy, the "Parties") hereby stipulate and agree that Wells Fargo's reply in support of its Countermotion for Summary Judgment ("MSJ"..
More
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THE COUNTERMOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(FIRST REQUEST)
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II, District Judge.
Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Wells Fargo") and Defendants Saticoy Bay LLC, Series 1851 Hillpointe Rd ("Saticoy") and Serenade Homeowners Association ("Serenade", collectively with Wells Fargo and Saticoy, the "Parties") hereby stipulate and agree that Wells Fargo's reply in support of its Countermotion for Summary Judgment ("MSJ", ECF No. 23), which is currently due September 7, 2017, may be extended to September 21, 2017.
Wells Fargo is in the process of assessing the oppositions to the MSJ filed by Saticoy and Serenade and the arguments raised therein and needs additional time to do so. Wells Fargo is also assessing recent decisions and orders from other Courts that may have an effect on its reply in support of the MSJ. Accordingly, good cause exists for the extension.
Based on the foregoing, the Parties respectfully request that the Court grant this Stipulation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
