US Bank National Association v. BDJ Investments, LLC, 2:16-cv-00866-GMN-PAL. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20190111e15
Visitors: 6
Filed: Jan. 10, 2019
Latest Update: Jan. 10, 2019
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO FILE REPLY TO MOTION TO DISMISS [ECF 85] [FIRST REQUEST] GLORIA M. NAVARRO , Chief District Judge . Defendant BDJ Investments, LLC ("BDJ Investments") by and through its attorneys Ayon Law, PLLC; Plaintiff U.S. Bank National Association as Trustee for Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors Trust, Mortgage Loan Assets Back Certificate Series 2205-A-8 ("U.S. Bank") by and through its attorneys Wright, Finlay, & Zak, LLP; hereby stipulate as follows: 1.
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO FILE REPLY TO MOTION TO DISMISS [ECF 85] [FIRST REQUEST] GLORIA M. NAVARRO , Chief District Judge . Defendant BDJ Investments, LLC ("BDJ Investments") by and through its attorneys Ayon Law, PLLC; Plaintiff U.S. Bank National Association as Trustee for Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors Trust, Mortgage Loan Assets Back Certificate Series 2205-A-8 ("U.S. Bank") by and through its attorneys Wright, Finlay, & Zak, LLP; hereby stipulate as follows: 1. B..
More
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO FILE REPLY TO MOTION TO DISMISS [ECF 85]
[FIRST REQUEST]
GLORIA M. NAVARRO, Chief District Judge.
Defendant BDJ Investments, LLC ("BDJ Investments") by and through its attorneys Ayon Law, PLLC; Plaintiff U.S. Bank National Association as Trustee for Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors Trust, Mortgage Loan Assets Back Certificate Series 2205-A-8 ("U.S. Bank") by and through its attorneys Wright, Finlay, & Zak, LLP; hereby stipulate as follows:
1. BDJ Investments filed its Motion to Dismiss on November 11, 2018 [ECF No. 85]. U.S. Bank filed its Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss on December 3, 2018. [ECF No. 86].
2. The deadline for BDJ Investments Reply to US Bank's Response was due on December 10, 2018. Due to a calendaring error, the parties have agreed to have BDJ Investments Reply Brief moved to January 9, 2019.
3. This is the first request for an extension and is not made for purposes of undue delay. Counsel for BDJ Investments needs additional time to fully brief this matter necessitating an extension of time. The Parties have entered into the agreement in good faith and not for purposes of delay.
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
