Opinion
2:22-cv-01392-GMN-BNW
04-05-2023
Richard Klein, Raymond Urias and Sandra J. Gunter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2005-3, et al., Defendant.
FREEDOM LAW FIRM, George Haines, Esq., Gerardo Avalos, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC Scott C. Harris* Gary M. Klinger* *to motion for appearance pro hac vice Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class Attorneys for Plaintiff and on behalf of all others similarly situated WRIGHT, FINLAY & ZAK, LLP, Ramir M. Hernandez, Esq., Darren T. Brenner, LOCKE LORD LLP, J. Matthew Goodin Attorneys for the Trust Defendants SESSIONS, ISRAEL & SHARTLE, LLP, James K. Schultz, SESSIONS, ISRAEL & SHARTLE, LLC, Bryan C. Shartle - Pro Hac Vice, Bradley J. St. Angelo - Pro Hac Vice, LINCOLN, GUSTAFSON & CERCOS LLP, Shannon G. Splaine, Esq. Attorneys for Transworld Systems Inc.
Current Response Date: April 5, 2023.
New Response Date: April 19, 2023
FREEDOM LAW FIRM, George Haines, Esq., Gerardo Avalos, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC Scott C. Harris* Gary M. Klinger* *to motion for appearance pro hac vice Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class Attorneys for Plaintiff and on behalf of all others similarly situated
WRIGHT, FINLAY & ZAK, LLP, Ramir M. Hernandez, Esq., Darren T. Brenner, LOCKE LORD LLP, J. Matthew Goodin Attorneys for the Trust Defendants
SESSIONS, ISRAEL & SHARTLE, LLP, James K. Schultz, SESSIONS, ISRAEL & SHARTLE, LLC, Bryan C. Shartle - Pro Hac Vice, Bradley J. St. Angelo - Pro Hac Vice, LINCOLN, GUSTAFSON & CERCOS LLP, Shannon G. Splaine, Esq. Attorneys for Transworld Systems Inc.
STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR EXTENDING TIME FOR PLAINTIFFS TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS (SECOND REQUEST)
Pursuant to Local Rules IA 6-1 and 7-1, Plaintiffs, Richard Klein, Raymond Urias and Sandra J. Gunter (“Plaintiffs”) and Transworld Systems Inc. (“TSI”) and National Collegiate Student Loan Trust (“NCSLT”) 2005-2, NCSLT 2006-3, NCSLT 2007-1, NCSLT 2007-2, and NCSLT 2007-3, and NCSLT 2007-4) (the “Trust Defendants”) (collectively, “Defendants”) (Plaintiffs and Defendants collectively referred to as the “Parties”), by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate, agree and respectfully request that the Court extend the deadline for the Plaintiffs to file their responses to the Trust Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 39) and TSI's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 40) from April 5, 2023 to April 19, 2023.
Both NCSLT's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 39) and TSI's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 40) were filed on March 8, 2023.
1. On December 23, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint. ECF NO. 20.
2. On December 28, 2022, Plaintiffs served the Summons and First Amended Complaint on TSI. ECF No. 23.
3. On December 29, 2022, Plaintiffs served the Summons and First Amended Complaint on NCSLTs. ECF No. 24.
4. Therefore, TSI's original response due date was January 18, 2023 and the Trust Defendants' original response due date was January 19, 2023.
5. The Trust Defendants' counsel needed additional time to investigate the new allegations and the Parties agreed to an extension of time for Defendants to respond to the First Amended Complaint through and until February 6, 2023. ECF No. 25
6. TSI's counsel needed additional time to evaluate the information necessary to respond to the Complaint and the Parties agreed to an extension of time for Defendant to respond to the First Amended Complaint through and until February 6, 2023. ECF No. 26.
7. Defendants then needed additional time to evaluate the information necessary to appropriately respond to the First Amended Complaint and the Parties agreed to an extension of time to respond to the First Amended Complaint through and until March 8, 2023.
8. On March 8, 2023, the Trust Defendants and TSI filed their respective Motions to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (“Motions to Dismiss”). ECF Nos. 39 & 40.
9. Plaintiffs' deadline to respond to these Motions to Dismiss was March 22, 2023.
10. The Parties Stipulated to extend Plaintiffs' deadline to response to the Motions to Dismiss to April 5, 2023. ECF No. 47.
11. The Parties have discussed extending the deadline Plaintiffs have to respond to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss as Plaintiffs' Counsel have either been traveling or sick leading up to the deadline for Plaintiffs' to respond. Also, the procedural and substantive issues in this case are complex and additional time is required to address these issues.
WHEREAS, the parties hereby stipulate and agree to extend the deadline for Plaintiffs to file their responses to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 39 & 40) to April 19, 2023.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.