Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ditech Financial LLC v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC

United States District Court, D. Nevada

December 21, 2017

DITECH FINANCIAL LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
SFR INVESTMENTS POOL I, LLC; BOULDER RANCH MASTER ASSOCIATION; TWILIGHT HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION; HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION SERVICES, INC.; HARMESH SINGH; KULJIT KAUR; DOES 1-20, Inclusive, Defendants. SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC, Counterclaimant,
v.
DITECH FINANCIAL, LLC, Counter-Defendant. SFR INVESTMENT POOL 1, LLC, Cross-Claimant, vs. DITECH FINANCIAL LLC; BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, FKA THE BANK OF NEW YORK as Trustee for the CERTIFICATEHOLDERS CWABS, INC., ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2005-j12 ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES SERIES 2005-17; HOUSEHOLD FINANCE REALTY CORPORATION OF NEVADA; HARMESH SINGH, an individual; and KULJIT JAUR, an individual, Cross-Defendants.

          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

          KIM 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 Homeowners Association

          GORDON 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 REQUEST)

          GLORIA M. NAVARRO, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

         This 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 116].
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 motions.
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 26, 2017.
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 ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.