Opinion
3:19-cv-00649-RCJ-CLB
12-27-2022
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR SOUNDVIEW HOME LOAN TRUST 2006 EQ2 ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-EQ2, Plaintiff, v. CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.
WRIGHT, FINLAY & ZAK, LLP Lindsay D. Dragon, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 13474 7785 W. Sahara Ave., Suite 200 Las Vegas, NV 89117 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for Soundview Home Loan Trust 2006 EQ2 Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2006-EQ2 SINCLAIR BRAUN LLP Kevin S. Sinclair, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 12277 16501 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400 Encino, California 91436 Attorney for Defendant, Chicago Title Insurance Company
WRIGHT, FINLAY & ZAK, LLP Lindsay D. Dragon, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 13474 7785 W. Sahara Ave., Suite 200 Las Vegas, NV 89117 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for Soundview Home Loan Trust 2006 EQ2 Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2006-EQ2
SINCLAIR BRAUN LLP Kevin S. Sinclair, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 12277 16501 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400 Encino, California 91436 Attorney for Defendant, Chicago Title Insurance Company
ORDER TO EXTEND TIME PERIOD TO RESPOND TO MOTION TO DISMISS [ECF NO. 28] (SECOND REQUEST)
COMES NOW Plaintiff, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for Soundview Home Loan Trust 2006 EQ2 Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2006-EQ2 (“Deutsche Bank”) and Defendant Chicago Title Insurance Company (“Chicago”), by and through their counsel of record, hereby stipulate and agree as follows:
1. On October 11, 2022, Deutsche Bank filed its First Amended Complaint [ECF No. 27];
2. On November 10, 2022, Chicago filed a Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 28];
3. Deutsche Bank's deadline to respond to Chicago's Motion to Dismiss is currently December 21, 2022 [ECF No. 33];
4. Deutsche Bank's counsel is requesting an extension until Wednesday, December 28, 2022, to file its response to the pending Motion to Dismiss;
5. This extension is requested to allow counsel for Deutsche Bank additional time to finalize its response to the pending Motion to Dismiss;
6. Counsel for Chicago does not oppose the requested extension;
7. This is the second request for an extension which is made in good faith and not for purposes of delay.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.