Opinion
3:20-CV-00046-MMD-WGC
07-10-2023
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Plaintiff, v. CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al. Defendants.
Scott E. Gizer, Esq, Sophia S. Lau, Esq, EARLY SULLIVAN WRIGHT GIZER & McRAE LLP SINCLAIR BRAUN KARGHER LLP KEVIN S. SINCLAIR Attorneys for Defendants CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY; FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE GROUP. INC.; and TICOR TITLE AGENCY OF NEVADA, INC. WRIGHT FINLAY & ZAK, LLP DARREN T. BRENNER Attorneys for Plaintiff BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.
Scott E. Gizer, Esq,
Sophia S. Lau, Esq,
EARLY SULLIVAN WRIGHT
GIZER & McRAE LLP
SINCLAIR BRAUN KARGHER LLP
KEVIN S. SINCLAIR
Attorneys for Defendants
CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY;
FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE GROUP. INC.; and TICOR TITLE AGENCY OF NEVADA, INC.
WRIGHT FINLAY & ZAK, LLP
DARREN T. BRENNER
Attorneys for Plaintiff
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.
STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING DEADLINES TO RESPOND (ECF NOS. 82, 83, 84, AND 91)
FOURTH REQUEST
MIRANDA M. DU, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
COMES NOW defendants Chicago Title Insurance Company (“Chicago Title”), Fidelity National Title Group, Inc., (“FNTG”) and Ticor Title of Nevada, Inc. (“Ticor Agency”) (collectively, “Defendants”) and plaintiff Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”), by and through their respective attorneys of record, hereby agree and stipulate as follows: 1. On March 6, 2023, Chicago Title, FNTG, and Ticor Agency each filed their respective motions to dismiss BANA's complaint. (ECF Nos. 82, 83, and 84);
2. On April 3, 2023, BANA filed its responses to Chicago Title, FNTG, and Ticor Agency's motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 89, 90, and 92) and filed a countermotion for partial summary judgment in response to Chicago Title's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 91);
3. On May 3, 2023 the Court granted the Parties' second stipulation extending the deadlines for Defendants to respond to the motions through and including June 9, 2023 (ECF No. 97);
4. On June 12, 2023 the Court granted the Parties' third stipulation extending the deadlines for Defendants to respond to the motions through and including July 10, 2023 (ECF No. 99);
5. Defendants request a two-week (14 day) extension of their respective deadlines to respond to the motions, through and including Monday, July 24, 2023, to afford Defendants additional time to respond to the legal arguments set forth in BANA's responses and countermotion;
6. BANA does not oppose the requested extensions;
7. This is the fourth request for an extension which is made in good faith and not for purposes of delay;
IT IS SO STIPULATED that Defendants' respective deadlines to reply in support of their motions to dismiss and Chicago Title's deadline to oppose BANA's countermotion for partial summary judgment are hereby extended through and including July 24, 2023.
IT IS SO ORDERED.