Filed: Dec. 22, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 22, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR APPELLANT CIT BANK, N.A. TO FILE REPLY BRIEF JAMES C. MAHAN , District Judge . Appellant CIT Bank, N.A. (" CIT ") and Appellee Katherine Griswold-Stanton (" Debtor ", and together with CIT, the " Parties ") hereby enter into this Stipulation and Order Extending Time for Appellant CIT Bank, N.A. to File Reply Brief (the " Stipulation "). The Parties stipulate and agree as follows: 1. This is an appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR APPELLANT CIT BANK, N.A. TO FILE REPLY BRIEF JAMES C. MAHAN , District Judge . Appellant CIT Bank, N.A. (" CIT ") and Appellee Katherine Griswold-Stanton (" Debtor ", and together with CIT, the " Parties ") hereby enter into this Stipulation and Order Extending Time for Appellant CIT Bank, N.A. to File Reply Brief (the " Stipulation "). The Parties stipulate and agree as follows: 1. This is an appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the ..
More
STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR APPELLANT CIT BANK, N.A. TO FILE REPLY BRIEF
JAMES C. MAHAN, District Judge.
Appellant CIT Bank, N.A. ("CIT") and Appellee Katherine Griswold-Stanton ("Debtor", and together with CIT, the "Parties") hereby enter into this Stipulation and Order Extending Time for Appellant CIT Bank, N.A. to File Reply Brief (the "Stipulation"). The Parties stipulate and agree as follows:
1. This is an appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada (the "Bankruptcy Court"). CIT appeals two orders entered on the Bankruptcy Court's Docket at Nos. 81 and 86 (together, the "Orders"), which together found that CIT had violated Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9011(b)(3) and awarded attorneys' fees to counsel for Katherine Griswold-Stanton (the "Debtor").
2. Under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(3) the Bankruptcy Court determined sua sponte (and on the record) that it had core jurisdiction to enter the Orders. Accordingly, the Bankruptcy Court had core jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).
3. On October 24, 2017, CIT timely appealed the Orders under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8002(a) and elected to have this Court hear the appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 158(c)(1)(A). This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1).
4. On November 28, 2017, the Court entered its Minute Order [Docket No. 4] setting the briefing schedule for the Parties.
5. On December 12, 2017, CIT timely filed its Opening Brief [Docket No. 5] and an accompanying Appendix (Excerpts of Record) [Docket No. 6]. The Debtor filed her Answering Brief on December 20, 2017 [Docket No. 7].
6. Pursuant to the Court's Minute Order, the deadline for CIT to file a Reply Brief is 14 days after Debtor files her Answering Brief. CIT's Reply Brief is due January 3, 2018. Due to other professional and personal commitments of counsel for CIT, it requests a 9-day extension of time to file its Reply Brief.
7. This is CIT's first request for an extension of time to file its Reply Brief. Counsel for the Debtor has no objection to this request.
8. The Debtor and CIT agree to extend the time for CIT to file its Reply Brief by 9 days up to and including January 12, 2018.
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.
