DITECH FINANCIAL LLC v. AMERICAN WEST VILLAGE II OWNERS ASSOCIATION, 2:17-cv-2164-JCM (GWF). (2017)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20171108d23
Visitors: 7
Filed: Nov. 07, 2017
Latest Update: Nov. 07, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT (FIRST REQUEST) GEORGE FOLEY, JR. , Magistrate Judge . IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Lindsey H. Morales, Esq., attorney for Plaintiffs Ditech Financial LLC (hereafter "Ditech") and Federal National Mortgage Association (hereafter "FNMA") and Michael F. Bohn, Esq., attorney for Defendant Saticoy Bay LLC Series 8829 Cornwall Glen (hereafter "Saticoy Bay") that Plaintiffs may
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT (FIRST REQUEST) GEORGE FOLEY, JR. , Magistrate Judge . IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Lindsey H. Morales, Esq., attorney for Plaintiffs Ditech Financial LLC (hereafter "Ditech") and Federal National Mortgage Association (hereafter "FNMA") and Michael F. Bohn, Esq., attorney for Defendant Saticoy Bay LLC Series 8829 Cornwall Glen (hereafter "Saticoy Bay") that Plaintiffs may h..
More
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT (FIRST REQUEST)
GEORGE FOLEY, JR., Magistrate Judge.
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Lindsey H. Morales, Esq., attorney for Plaintiffs Ditech Financial LLC (hereafter "Ditech") and Federal National Mortgage Association (hereafter "FNMA") and Michael F. Bohn, Esq., attorney for Defendant Saticoy Bay LLC Series 8829 Cornwall Glen (hereafter "Saticoy Bay") that Plaintiffs may have additional time within which to oppose or otherwise respond to Saticoy Bay's Motion to Dismiss filed on October 19, 2017 as docket number 19. Specifically, the parties have agreed to extend Defendant's time to respond by 14 days from the original due date of November 2, 2017; therefore, Plaintiffs may oppose or otherwise respond to the Motion to Dismiss on or before November 17, 2017.
The parties further agree that good cause exists for this extension; the amended response deadline provides Plaintiffs with the opportunity to thoroughly respond to the motion without significantly delaying the prosecution of this case in whole.
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED. Plaintiff shall answer or otherwise respond to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Compliant on or before November 17, 2017.
Source: Leagle
