Ally Bank et al v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 3:2011cv00896 - Document 191 (N.D. Cal. 2012)

Court Description: ORDER granting request for extension (#189) (tfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/14/2012)
Download PDF
Ally Bank et al v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 1 2 3 4 Doc. 191 Stephen C. Seto (SBN 175458) (sseto@sbllp.com) Connor M. Day (SBN 233245) (cday@sbllp.com) Buchman Provine Brothers Smith LLP 1333 N. California Blvd., Suite 350 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 944-9700 Facsimile: (925) 944-9701 5 6 7 8 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Fidelity National Title Insurance Company, Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company, Ally Bank, Wesley W. Halihan, Gina L. Halihan, Li-Ling Sung, Tiee-Shan Tsai, Tatyana Madina, Dawn R. Carifi, Karrie L. Hanna, Brian Phuong, Crichton Friedly and Janet N. Friedly 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Thomas J. LaLanne (SBN 55199) (tomlalanne@sbcglobal.net) Law Offices of Thomas J. LaLanne 369 Broadway San Francisco, CA 94133 Tel: (415) 434-1122 Fax: (415) 434-1125 Attorneys for Defendants James C. Castle, CCTT Group; CJT Financial Group; and Oreplex International LLC, and Other Defendants Ann McFarland Draper (SBN 65669) (ann@draperlaw.net) Draper Law Offices 601 Montgomery Street, Suite 1150 San Francisco, California 94111 Tel: (415) 391-4200 Fax 415) 989-4739 Attorneys for Defendant James C. Castle UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BUCHMAN PROVINE BROTHERS SMITH LLP ATTORN EY S AT LAW FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. JAMES C. CASTLE aka J. CHRISTOPHER CASTLE at al., and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants. No. C-11-00896 SI STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR PLAINTIFFS TO RESPOND, AND DEFENDANTS TO REPLY, ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 256828.1 Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Extending Time to Respond to Motion to Dismiss (No. C-11-00896 SI) Dockets.Justia.com STIPULATION 1 2 Defendants Alicia A. Sanders, Jon P. Sanders, Daniel R. Young, Kelly E. Young, Lara 3 Karakasevic, Jolee Lange, Jason Young, CJT Financial Group, GJZ Group and Golden Hills 4 Group, Randall C. Crawford, Fahed M. Eweis, Nadia E. Eweis, Kevin Keith, Christy Keith, 5 Donald Porto, Patricia Porto, David R. Thompson, Melissa A. Thompson, Tisha L. Trites, Tisha 6 Trites Realty, Ryan Styles, James C. Castle, CCTT Group and Oreplex International LLC, Laura 7 M. Pezzi, John-Michael Di Chiara, Shon-Te-East-A, Walks With Spirit, Corporation Sole, Remus 8 Kirkpatrick, Golden Hills Trust and Financial Recovery Group (collectively “Defendants”) filed a 9 total of eleven (11) Notices of Motion and Motions to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended 10 Complaint on January 23, 2012 (the “Original Motions”) as well as a motion under the Colorado 11 River Doctrine to stay the action as to certain parties and transactions based on two pending state 12 court actions. 13 Defendants filed ten (10) Amended Notices of Motion and Motions to Dismiss (the “Amended 14 Motions.”). (The motion to stay and one of the motions to dismiss were not amended.) Four (4) 15 of the Amended Motions challenged additional causes of actions in Plaintiffs’ Second Amended 16 Complaint that were not challenged in the Original Motions. 17 Amended Motions will be collectively referred to as the “Motions”). All of the Motions are set 18 for hearing on March 23, 2012. 19 20 Thereafter, on January 30, 2012, January 31, 2012 and February 2, 2012, (The Original Motions and Plaintiffs’ response to Defendants’ motion to stay was filed when due on February 6, 2012. See Docket No. 140 (motion) and Docket No. 177 (opposition). 21 The Amended Motions of Defendants Alicia A. Sanders, Jon P. Sanders, Daniel R. 22 Young, Kelly E. Young, Lara Karakasevic, Jolee Lange, Jason Young, CJT Financial Group, GJZ 23 Group and Golden Hills Group, Randall C. Crawford, Fahed M. Eweis, Nadia E. Eweis, Kevin 24 Keith, Christy Keith, Donald Porto, Patricia Porto, David R. Thompson and Melissa A. 25 Thompson were filed on January 30, 2012 and Plaintiffs’ responses to said Amended Motions are 26 due on or before February 13, 2012. See Docket Nos. 154, 155, 156, 157 and 158. 27 The Amended Motion of Defendants Tisha L. Trites, Tisha Trites Realty and Ryan Styles 28 was filed on January 31, 2012 and Plaintiffs’ response to said Amended Motion is due on or BUCHMAN PROVINE BROTHERS SMITH LLP ATTORN EY S AT LAW 256828.1 -2- Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Extending Time to Respond and Reply re Motions to Dismiss (No. 3:11-cv-00896 SI) 1 before February 14, 2012. See Docket No. 159. 2 The Amended Motions of Defendants James C. Castle, CCTT Group and Oreplex 3 International LLC, Laura M. Pezzi, John-Michael Di Chiara, Shon-Te-East-A, Walks With Spirit, 4 Corporation Sole, Remus Kirkpatrick, Golden Hills Trust and Financial Recovery Group were 5 filed on February 2, 2012 and Plaintiffs’ responses to said Amended Motions are due on or before 6 February 16, 2012. See Docket Nos. 173, 174 and 175. 7 The Original Motion of Defendant Todd J. Smith was not amended but pursuant to 8 stipulation and order Plaintiffs’ response thereto is due on or before February 13, 2012. See 9 Docket No. 178 (order on stipulation). 10 Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 6-2(a) permits parties to file a stipulation 11 changing the time that would affect the date of a deadline fixed by Court order, Local Rules or 12 Federal Rules. In light of the large number of defendants who have filed Motions (a total of thirty 13 (30) Defendants and eleven (11) Motions), the complexity of the factual transactions underlying 14 the litigation, the complexity of the facts and legal arguments set forth in Defendants’ Motions 15 and the various acts and roles of the individual Defendants as alleged in the Second Amended 16 Complaint, the parties have agreed: (A) that Plaintiffs may have additional time, to and including 17 Thursday, March 1, 2012, in which to respond to all eleven (11) Motions filed by Defendants; (B) 18 that Defendants’ reply papers, if any, shall be due on March 9, 2012; and (C) that Defendants’ 19 reply papers on the motion to stay shall also be due on March 9, 2012. 20 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between Plaintiffs and 21 Defendants as follows: (A) that Plaintiffs may have additional time, to and including Thursday, 22 March 1, 2012, in which to respond to all eleven (11) Motions to dismiss filed by Defendants; (B) 23 that Defendants’ reply papers, if any, shall be due on March 9, 2012; and (C) that Defendants’ 24 reply papers on Defendants’ motion to stay shall also be due on March 9, 2012. 25 DATED: February 9, 2012 BUCHMAN PROVINE BROTHERS SMITH LLP 26 By: 27 28 BUCHMAN PROVINE BROTHERS SMITH LLP ATTORN EY S AT LAW 256828.1 /s/ Connor M. Day STEPHEN C. SETO CONNOR M. DAY Attorneys for Plaintiffs -3- Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Extending Time to Respond and Reply re Motions to Dismiss (No. 3:11-cv-00896 SI) 1 DATED: February 9, 2012 LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS J. LALANNE 2 By: 3 4 /s/ Thomas J. LaLanne THOMAS J. LALANNE Attorneys for Defendants James C. Castle (aka J. Christopher Castle), CCTT Group; CJT Financial Group; and Oreplex International LLC and other defendants 5 6 7 DATED: February 9, 2012 DRAPER LAW OFFICES 8 By: 9 10 /s/ Ann McFarland Draper ANN McFARLAND DRAPER Attorneys for Defendant James C. Castle (aka J. Christopher Castle) 11 12 DECLARATION OF COUNSEL 13 14 I, Connor M. Day, hereby declare as follows: 15 1. I am an attorney with the law office of Buchman Provine Brothers & Smith LLP, 16 attorneys of record herein for Plaintiffs Fidelity National Title Insurance Company, 17 Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company, Ally Bank, Wesley W. Halihan, Gina L. 18 Halihan, Li-Ling Sung, Tiee-Shan Tsai, Tatyana Madina, Dawn R. Carifi, Karrie L. Hanna, Brian 19 Phuong, Crichton Friedly and Janet N. Friedly (collectively, “Plaintiffs”). I am duly licensed to 20 practice before all of the courts of the State of California. 2. 21 22 I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein and could and would testify competently thereto if called upon to do so. 3. 23 Pursuant to Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 6-2(a), I submit this 24 declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Extending the Time for 25 Plaintiffs’ to Respond to Defendants Motions to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint. 4. 26 Currently, the thirty (30) defendants represented by Thomas J. LaLanne have filed 27 a total of eleven (11) motions to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs’ 28 responses to defendants’ motions to dismiss are due on February 13, 2012, February 14, 2012 and BUCHMAN PROVINE BROTHERS SMITH LLP ATTORN EY S AT LAW 256828.1 -4- Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Extending Time to Respond and Reply re Motions to Dismiss (No. 3:11-cv-00896 SI) 1 February 16, 2012. In addition, defendants also filed a motion to stay under the Colorado River 2 Doctrine, to which Plaintiffs have already filed their opposition and for which defendants’ reply 3 papers are currently due on February 13, 2012. 4 5. In light of the large number of defendants who have filed Motions to dismiss (a 5 total of thirty (30) Defendants and eleven (11) Motions), the complexity of the factual 6 transactions underlying the litigation, the complexity of the facts and legal arguments set forth in 7 Defendants’ Motions and the various acts and roles of the individual Defendants as alleged in the 8 Second Amended Complaint, the parties have agreed that Plaintiffs may have additional time, to 9 and including Thursday, March 1, 2012, in which to respond to all eleven (11) of the Motions (to 10 dismiss) filed by Defendants; and accordingly the parties have also agreed that Defendants’ reply 11 papers on the eleven (11) Motions to dismiss, as well as Defendants’ reply papers on the motion 12 to stay, shall all be due on Friday, March 9, 2012. 13 6. All eleven (11) motions to dismiss filed by the defendants are scheduled to be 14 heard by this Court on March 23, 2012 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 10. In addition, a case 15 management conference is currently scheduled for April 13, 2012. In light of the usual notice and 16 briefing schedule for motions in this district, I do not believe that extending the time within which 17 Plaintiffs can respond to Defendants’ Motions will have any effect on the current schedule of this 18 case or the hearing date of March 23, 2012. 19 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 20 foregoing is true and correct. This declaration is executed at Walnut Creek, California, this 9th 21 day of February 2012. 22 /s/ Connor M. Day CONNOR M. DAY 23 24 25 26 27 28 BUCHMAN PROVINE BROTHERS SMITH LLP ATTORN EY S AT LAW 256828.1 -5- Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Extending Time to Respond and Reply re Motions to Dismiss (No. 3:11-cv-00896 SI) [PROPOSED] ORDER 1 2 PURSUANT TO THE FOREDOING STIPULATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED 3 THAT the time for Plaintiffs to file responses to the Amended Notices of Motion and Motions to 4 Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint filed on January 30, 2012, January 31, 2012 and 5 February 2, 2012 by defendants Alicia A. Sanders, Jon P. Sanders, Daniel R. Young, Kelly E. 6 Young, Lara Karakasevic, Jolee Lange, Jason Young, CJT Financial Group, GJZ Group and 7 Golden Hills Group, Randall C. Crawford, Fahed M. Eweis, Nadia E. Eweis, Kevin Keith, 8 Christy Keith, Donald Porto, Patricia Porto, David R. Thompson, Melissa A. Thompson, Tisha L. 9 Trites, Tisha Trites Realty, Ryan Styles, James C. Castle, CCTT Group and Oreplex International 10 LLC, Laura M. Pezzi, John-Michael Di Chiara, Shon-Te-East-A, Walks With Spirit, Corporation 11 Sole, Remus Kirkpatrick, Golden Hills Trust and Financial Recovery Group, shall be extended to 12 March 1, 2012. 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the time for Plaintiffs to file a response to defendant 14 Todd J. Smith’s Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint 15 shall be extended to March 1, 2012. 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the Defendants shall have to and including March 9, 17 2012, in which to file their reply papers on the motion to stay and on the eleven (11) motions to 18 dismiss. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 Dated: February __, 2012 14 ________________________________________ SUSAN ILLSTON Untied States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BUCHMAN PROVINE BROTHERS SMITH LLP ATTORN EY S AT LAW 256828.1 -6- Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Extending Time to Respond and Reply re Motions to Dismiss (No. 3:11-cv-00896 SI)