Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Bank of New York Mellon v. Southern Highlands Community Association, 2:15-cv-01711-JCM-CWH. (2018)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20180906d32 Visitors: 3
Filed: Sep. 05, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 05, 2018
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINES TO FILE RESPONSES TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS [ECF Nos. 100, 101, and 102]. [Second Request] JAMES C. MAHAN , District Judge . Plaintiff/counter-defendant Bank of New York Mellon f/k/a The Bank of New York, as Trustee on behalf of the Holders of the Alternative Loan Trust 2006-OA2, Mortgage Pass Through Certificates Series 2006-OA2 ( BoNYM ), defendant Southern Highlands Community Association ( Southern Highlands ), and defendant/counter-plaintiff
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINES TO FILE RESPONSES TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS [ECF Nos. 100, 101, and 102].

[Second Request]

Plaintiff/counter-defendant Bank of New York Mellon f/k/a The Bank of New York, as Trustee on behalf of the Holders of the Alternative Loan Trust 2006-OA2, Mortgage Pass Through Certificates Series 2006-OA2 (BoNYM), defendant Southern Highlands Community Association (Southern Highlands), and defendant/counter-plaintiff SFR Investments Pool I, LLC (SFR) (collectively the parties) stipulate to extend the parties' deadlines to file responses to each other's summary judgment motions by an additional one week, to September 12, 2018.

BoNYM and Southern Highlands filed their summary judgment motions on July 31, 2018, and SFR filed its summary judgment motion on August 1, 2018. ECF No. 100, 101, and 102. On August 21, 2018, the parties stipulated to extend all response deadlines to September 5, 2018. ECF Nos. 103, 104. The parties stipulate to extend this deadline to September 12, 2018.

The parties also stipulate that replies supporting each of the motions for summary judgment shall be due on September 26, 2018, despite any oppositions filed prior to September 12, 2018.

This request is made to allow the parties additional time to adequately prepare their responses in light of the numerous stays being lifted in cases the parties' counsel are involved in due to the Nevada supreme court's answer to the certified question. This is the parties' second request for an extension, and is not made to cause delay or prejudice 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