Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. Bank National Association v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC, 2:16-cv-00576-GMN-NJK. (2018)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20180815f07 Visitors: 2
Filed: Aug. 12, 2018
Latest Update: Aug. 12, 2018
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO FILE OPPOSITION TO SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1 LLC'S AND THE GREEN VALLEY SOUTH OWNERS ASSOCIATION NO. 1'S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST REQUEST) GLORIA M. NAVARRO , Chief District Judge . Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee for Greenpoint Mortgage Funding Trust Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-AR7 ("U.S. Bank"), and Defendant/Counter/Cross-Claimant, SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC ("SFR"), and the
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO FILE OPPOSITION TO SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1 LLC'S AND THE GREEN VALLEY SOUTH OWNERS ASSOCIATION NO. 1'S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(FIRST REQUEST)

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee for Greenpoint Mortgage Funding Trust Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-AR7 ("U.S. Bank"), and Defendant/Counter/Cross-Claimant, SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC ("SFR"), and the Green Valley South Owners Association No. 1 ("HOA") (collectively, the "Parties"), by and through their counsel of record, hereby stipulate and agree as follows:

On July 2, 2018, U.S. Bank, the HOA and SFR each filed its Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF Nos. 111, 112 and 113]. Additionally, on July 23, 2018, SFR filed its Response to U.S. Bank's Motion for Summary Judgment and Countermotion to Strike U.S. Bank's Motion for Summary Judgment. [ECF Nos. 115 and 116]. SFR's Motion for Summary Judgment and Response both raise complex issues and counsel requires additional time to complete an Opposition thereto and timely complete a Reply to its own Motion for Summary Judgment. For these reasons, the Parties' are in agreement to extend the deadline for U.S. Bank to file its Oppositions to SFR's and the HOA's of Motions for Summary Judgment by two weeks. This is the Parties' first request to extend the subject deadline and the request is made in good faith and not for purposes of delay or prejudice to any other party.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED that the deadline for U.S. Bank to file an Opposition to SFR's Motion for Summary Judgment shall be extended to August 3, 2018.

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the deadline for U.S. Bank to file an Opposition to the HOA's Motion for Summary Judgment shall be extended to August 3, 2018.

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the deadline for both SFR and the HOA to file their Replies in Support of their respective Motions for Summary Judgment shall be extended to August 20, 2018.

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the deadline for SFR to file its Reply in Support of its Countermotion to Strike U.S. Bank's Motion for Summary Judgment shall be extended to August 20, 2018.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

ORDER

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