Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company As Indenture Trustee for American Home Mortgage Investment Trust 2007-1, Mortgage-Backed Notes and Grantor Trust Certificates, Series 2007-1 v. Ruby Red Investments, LLC, Series K, 3:16-cv-00704-MMD-VPC. (2017)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20180102975 Visitors: 11
Filed: Dec. 28, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 28, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME IN WHICH TO RESPOND TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (First Request) MIRANDA M. DU , District Judge . Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Indenture Trustee for American Home Mortgage Investment Trust 2007-1, Mortgage-Backed Notes and Grantor Trust Certificates, Series 2007-1 (hereinafter "Deutsche Bank"), by and through its attorneys of record, the law firm of Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP, Defendant/Counter
More

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME IN WHICH TO RESPOND TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (First Request)

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Indenture Trustee for American Home Mortgage Investment Trust 2007-1, Mortgage-Backed Notes and Grantor Trust Certificates, Series 2007-1 (hereinafter "Deutsche Bank"), by and through its attorneys of record, the law firm of Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP, Defendant/Counterclaimant, Ruby Red Investments, LLC, Series K (hereinafter "Ruby Red"), by and through its attorneys of record, the Law Office of David E. Adkins, and Defendant, High Sierra Ranch Home Owners' Association (hereinafter "HOA"), by and through its attorneys of record, the Law Office of David E. Adkins, hereby stipulate to an extension of time in which Ruby Red and HOA have to respond to Deutsche Bank's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF Dckt. No. 31) to January 11, 2018.

Defendants' oppositions to Plaintiff's Motion are currently due on December 28, 2017. Good cause exists to extend the deadline, as the extension will allow the Defendants' counsel an opportunity to review more fully the points and authorities raised in Plaintiffs' Motion and to respond thereto. In addition, the parties have discussed settling their dispute and require additional time to negotiate a settlement.

This is the parties' first request for an extension to respond to Plaintiff's Motion, and is not intended to cause any delay or prejudice to any party.

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