U.S. Bank Home Mortgage v. Jensen, 3:17-cv-00603-MMD-VPC. (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20180423a03
Visitors: 17
Filed: Apr. 20, 2018
Latest Update: Apr. 20, 2018
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANTS ROBERT V. JENSEN JR. AND JUDITH L. JENSEN TO FILE AND SERVE RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 32) MIRANDA M. DU , District Judge . IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between Plaintiffs U.S. BANK HOME MORTGAGE (U.S. BANK) and FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION (FREDDIE MAC) (U.S. BANK and FREDDIE MAC will be referred to collectively as "Plaintiffs") and Defendants ROBERT V. JENSEN (ROBERT) and JUDITH L. JENS
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANTS ROBERT V. JENSEN JR. AND JUDITH L. JENSEN TO FILE AND SERVE RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 32) MIRANDA M. DU , District Judge . IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between Plaintiffs U.S. BANK HOME MORTGAGE (U.S. BANK) and FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION (FREDDIE MAC) (U.S. BANK and FREDDIE MAC will be referred to collectively as "Plaintiffs") and Defendants ROBERT V. JENSEN (ROBERT) and JUDITH L. JENSE..
More
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANTS ROBERT V. JENSEN JR. AND JUDITH L. JENSEN TO FILE AND SERVE RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 32)
MIRANDA M. DU, District Judge.
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between Plaintiffs U.S. BANK HOME MORTGAGE (U.S. BANK) and FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION (FREDDIE MAC) (U.S. BANK and FREDDIE MAC will be referred to collectively as "Plaintiffs") and Defendants ROBERT V. JENSEN (ROBERT) and JUDITH L. JENSEN (JUDITH), TRUSTEES OF THE JENSEN FAMILY TRUST, U/A DATED 11/7/95, an unknown trust (ROBERT and JUDITH will be referred to collectively as the "JENSENS"), by and through their respective counsel, that the deadline for the JENSENS to file and serve their response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 32) shall be extended to April 30, 2018. Such extension is requested due to JENSENS' counsel's inability to comply with the present deadline due to personal family medical issues. This is the second stipulation for extension of time for the JENSENS to file a response to the aforementioned motion, with the first having been denied for failure to comply with LR 1A 6-1(a) (EFC No. 36).
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
