Opinion
2:21-cv-01254-RFB-EJY 2:21-cv-02149-APG-BNW 2:22- cv-00374-RFB-EJY
04-12-2022
TIFFANY YIP, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant. A.M. HAMILTON, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant.
Kelly H. Dove (No. 10569) SNELL & WILMER LLP, James McGarry (pro hac vice) GOODWIN PROCTER LLP, Yvonne Chan (pro hac vice) JONES DAY, Attorneys for Defendant Bank of America, N.A. Michael Kind (No. 13903) KIND LAW, George Haines (No. 9411) Gerardo Avalos (No. 15171) FREEDOM LAW FIRM, Joshua Swigart (pro hac vice) SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC, Attorneys for Plaintiff Tiffany Yip, et al. George O. West III (No. 7951) LAW OFFICES OF GEORGE O. WEST III, E. ADAM WEBB (pro hac vice) WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND LLC, Attorneys for Plaintiff A.M. Hamilton.
Kelly H. Dove (No. 10569) SNELL & WILMER LLP, James McGarry (pro hac vice) GOODWIN PROCTER LLP, Yvonne Chan (pro hac vice) JONES DAY, Attorneys for Defendant Bank of America, N.A.
Michael Kind (No. 13903) KIND LAW, George Haines (No. 9411) Gerardo Avalos (No. 15171) FREEDOM LAW FIRM, Joshua Swigart (pro hac vice) SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC, Attorneys for Plaintiff Tiffany Yip, et al.
George O. West III (No. 7951) LAW OFFICES OF GEORGE O. WEST III, E. ADAM WEBB (pro hac vice) WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND LLC, Attorneys for Plaintiff A.M. Hamilton.
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (FIRST REQUEST)
Plaintiffs Tiffany Yip, et al. and A.M. Hamilton (“Plaintiffs”) and Bank of America, N.A. (“Defendant, ” and together with Plaintiffs, the “Parties”), by and through their respective counsel, hereby submit this stipulation for an extension of time for Defendant's responsive pleadings or motions in Yip v. Bank of America, No. 2:21-cv-01254, and Hamilton v. Bank of America, No. 2:22-cv-00374. This is the first request for an extension of either of these deadlines.
Defendant's deadline for responding to the First Amended Complaint in Yip is April 20, 2022. Yip, ECF. No. 28. Defendant's response to the Hamilton Complaint is due on May 9, 2022. Hamilton, ECF. No. 8. However, Defendant has filed a motion to consolidate Hamilton with Yip for all pretrial purposes, including briefing on Defendant's anticipated motion to dismiss. Yip ECF No. 32; Hamilton, ECF No. 10. Plaintiffs will oppose the motion.
The Parties ask that the Court continue the current deadlines for Defendant's response to the complaints until after the Court has ruled on Defendant's motion to consolidate. Doing so will allow the Court to first rule on the issue of consolidation before the Parties proceed with the motion to dismiss briefing, and may avoid the filing of potentially unnecessary briefs. In order to avoid further delays based on amendments to the complaints, the Parties also agree that the Hamilton plaintiff may file an amended complaint prior to the Court's ruling on Defendant's Motion to Consolidate.
The Parties therefore stipulate as follows:
Defendant's anticipated motion or motions to dismiss shall be due 30 days after this Court's ruling on the Motion to Consolidate.
Plaintiffs' opposition(s) to Defendant's motion(s) shall be due 30 days after the deadline for Defendant's motion(s).
Defendant's reply(ies) shall be due 21 days after the deadline for Plaintiffs' opposition(s).
The Hamilton plaintiff may amend his complaint until the Court rules on the Motion to Consolidate (this shall not limit his ability to amend further to the extent permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Court).
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.