From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Heydt v. Citimortgage, Inc.

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Aug 20, 2015
2:15-cv-00909-WBS-KJN (E.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2015)

Opinion

          MAYER BROWN LLP, STEVEN E. RICH, Los Angeles, CA, MAYER BROWN LLP, LUCIA NALE (admitted pro hac vice), THOMAS V. PANOFF (admitted pro hac vice), MATTHEW D. PROVANCE (admitted pro hac vice), Chicago, IL, Attorneys for Defendant CITIMORTGAGE, INC.

          CONSUMERS FIRST ATTORNEYS, LLP, LINDA DEOS, Attorneys for Plaintiffs David T. Heydt and Jennifer F. Heydt.


          STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR CITIMORTGAGE'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

          WILLIAM B. SHUBB, District Judge.

         This Stipulation is entered into by and between Defendant CitiMortgage, Inc. ("CitiMortgage") and Plaintiffs David T. Heydt and Jennifer F. Heydt ("Plaintiffs") (collectively, the "Parties"), as follows:

         RECITALS

         1. On April 27, 2015, Plaintiffs filed their initial Complaint [Dkt. 1] against CitiMortgage and co-Defendants Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Equifax Information Services, LLC, and TransUnion, LLC.

         2. On July 20, 2015, CitiMortgage filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint [Dkt. 27, 28] pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).

         3. On August 5, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint [Dkt. 33] ("FAC"). CitiMorgage subsequently filed a Notice of Withdrawal [Dkt. 34] withdrawing its initial motion to dismiss without prejudice.

         4. Concurrent with the filing of this Stipulation, CitiMortgage is filing its motion to dismiss the FAC, which seeks dismissal of Plaintiffs' FAC as to CitiMortgage with prejudice.

         5. The Parties have conferred and reached an agreement to notice CitiMortgage's motion to dismiss for hearing on November 2, 2015, so that briefing on the motion will not conflict with Plaintiffs' counsel's travel schedule during the month of September. The Parties further agree that given the complexity of the legal issues and argument that Plaintiffs anticipate submitting in their opposition to the motion to dismiss, CitiMortgage should have 14 days in which to submit its reply.

         AGREEMENT

         NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the foregoing and subject to Court approval, the Parties hereby STIPULATE AND AGREE AS FOLLOWS:

         1. Plaintiffs' opposition to CitiMortgage's motion to dismiss the FAC shall be filed on or before October 9, 2015; and

         2. CitiMortgage's reply shall be filed on or before October 26, 2015.

         PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Heydt v. Citimortgage, Inc.

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Aug 20, 2015
2:15-cv-00909-WBS-KJN (E.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2015)
Case details for

Heydt v. Citimortgage, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:DAVID T. HEYDT and JENNIFER F. HEYDT, individually, and on behalf of the…

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Aug 20, 2015

Citations

2:15-cv-00909-WBS-KJN (E.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2015)