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.

Clark v. Bank of America N.A.

United States District Court, D. Nevada

December 5, 2019

MAUREEN CLARK and SONYA ALEXANDER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA N.A. Defendant.

          MCGUIREWOODS LLP Michael D. Mandel (admitted pro hac vice) California Bar No. 216934, WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP Sheri M. Thome Nevada Bar No. 8657 Chad C. Butterfield Nevada Bar No. 10532 Attorneys for Defendant BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.

          Don Springmeyer Nevada Bar No. 1021 Bradley S. Schrager Nevada Bar No 10217 WOLF, RIFKIN, SHAPIRO, SCHULMAN & RABKIN, LLP, Kevin J. Stoops (admitted pro hac vice) (Michigan SBN # P64371) SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C., Jason T. Brown (admitted pro hac vice) (New Jersey SBN# 035921996) Nicholas Conlon (admitted pro hac vice) (New Jersey SBN# 034052013) BROWN, LLC Attorneys for Plaintiffs MAUREEN CLARK and SONYA ALEXANDER

          JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE DEADLINE TO FILE PROPOSED PLAN

          Cam Ferenbach United States Magistrate Judge

         RECITALS

         WHEREAS, on November 15, 2019, this Court issued an Order setting a discovery hearing for this case for November 25, 2019 [Dkt. #88];

         WHEREAS, on November 19, 2019, Plaintiffs and Defendant (collectively, the “Parties”) filed a joint motion to continue the discovery hearing originally set for November 25, 2019 (“Joint Motion”) in light of the Parties' upcoming mediation on November 20, 2019 [Dtk. #89];

         WHEREAS, on November 20, 2019, this Court issued an order granting the Parties Joint Motion dated November 19, 2019, vacating the discovery hearing originally set for November 25, 2019, and requiring the Parties to submit a proposed plan and scheduling order (“Proposed Plan”) on or before December 4, 2019 in the event that this case did not settle at the mediation on November 20, 2019 [Dtk. #90];

         WHEREAS, on November 20, 2019, the Parties attended and participated in the scheduled mediation, at the conclusion of which a mediator's proposal was made, which the Parties have until January 20, 2020, to accept or reject;

         WHEREAS, on Tuesday, November 26, 2019, shortly before the Thanksgiving Holiday, Plaintiff's Counsel provided Defendant's Counsel with an initial draft of the Proposed Plan;

         WHEREAS, on November 27, 2019, the Parties filed a joint report regarding the status of the November 20, 2019 mediation, and stating that the Parties were conferring regarding a draft of the Proposed Plan to be filed by December 4, 2019 [Dtk. #92];

         WHEREAS, immediately after the Thanksgiving holiday weekend, Defendant's lead counsel became engaged in jury duty, which is expected to last for at least another five-to-seven days, and, consequently, the Parties need additional time to meet and confer to attempt to narrow or eliminate their areas of disagreement about certain aspects of the Proposed Plan before finalizing and filing it, which the Parties are confident will be accomplished by December 13, 2019;

         WHEREAS, in light of the pending mediator's proposal and the contingent possibility of settlement on or by January 20, 2020, the Scheduling Order to be entered by the Court may become moot issue; and

         WHEREAS, in light of all of the foregoing, the Parties have conferred and agree that good cause exists to continue the deadline for filing the Proposed Plan from December 4, 2019 to December 13, 2019.

         S ...


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.