United States District Court, D. Nevada
KOLESAR & LEATHAM, Scott. D. Fleming, Esq, MICHAEL R.
BROOKS, ESQ, SCOTT D. FLEMING, ESQ, Attorneys for
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant and Cross-Defendant DITECH
FINANCIAL LLC and THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORPORATION, as
Trustee for the Certificateholders of the CWABS, Inc. Asset-
Backed Certificates Series 2005-17
GILBERT EBRON, DIANA S. EBRON, ESQ., JACQUELINE A. GILBERT,
ESQ, Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaimant /Cross-Claimant
SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC
LIPSON, NEILSON, COLE, SELTZER & GARIN, P.C, Amber M.
Williams, JOSEPH P. GARIN, ESQ., J. WILLIAM EBERT, ESQ.,
AMBER M. WILLIAMS, ESQ, Attorneys for Defendant Twilight
REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP, Rachel L. Wise, Esq., ROBERT S.
LARSEN, ESQ, Attorneys for Boulder Ranch Master Association
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO REPLY TO
OPPOSITIONS TO MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND TO CLARIFY DATE TO
REPLY TO OPPOSITIONS TO MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST
M. NAVARRO, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Stipulation and Order to Extend Time to Reply to
Oppositions to Motions to Dismiss and to Clarify Date to
Reply to Oppositions to Motions for Summary Judgment
(the “Stipulation”) is made by (i)
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant/Cross-Defendant, DITECH FINANCIAL
LLC (“Ditech”) and Cross-Defendant THE BANK OF
NEW YORK MELLON CORPORATION as Trustee for the
Certificateholders of the CWABS, Inc. Asset-backed
Certificates Series 2005-17 (“BONY Mellon” and
with Ditech, “Lenders”): (ii)
Defendant/Counter-Claimant/Cross-Claimant SFR INVESTMENTS
POOL 1, LLC (“SFR”); (iii) Defendant BOULDER
RANCH MASTER ASSOCIATION (“Boulder Ranch”); and
(iv) Defendant TWILIGHT HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
(“Twilight”), each by and through their
respective counsel, and is based on the following:
1. On November 13, 2017, the parties filed motions to dismiss
that have been identified as [ECF No. 107, 112 and 115].
2. On the same day, the parties filed motions for summary
judgment that have been identified as [ECF No. 105, 113 and
3. Pursuant to an Order entered on the docket as [ECF No.
127], this Court extended the time for parties to respond to
motions to dismiss so that the filings would coincide with
the deadline for filing responses to summary judgment
4. On December 11, 2017, the parties timely filed responses
to the motions to dismiss and for summary judgment as [ECF
No. 129, 130, 131, 132 and 133].
5. The Court's electronic docketing system has noted that
the deadline to file replies to oppositions to motions to
dismiss has been set for December 18, 2017. See [ECF
No. 129 and 133].
6. The Court's electronic docketing system has noted that
the deadline to file replies to oppositions to motions for
summary judgment has been set for December 25, 2017.
See [ECF No. 130, 131 and 132]. The parties are
informed and believe that December 25, 2017 is a Court
holiday and that the pursuant to local rules, the deadline to
reply to these matters should be noted as Tuesday, December
7. The motions to dismiss and the motions for summary
judgment raise many of the same issues, and the parties
believe that it is likely that the Court will take up all of
these matters at the same time.
8. The parties stipulate and agree, and jointly request entry
of an order, extending the time to file replies to
oppositions to motions to dismiss so that those filings
coincide with the deadline for filing ...