Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Howard v. Wells Fargo Financial Missouri

July 22, 2008

RICHARD HOWARD, PLAINTIFF,
v.
WELLS FARGO FINANCIAL MISSOURI, INC., WELLS FARGO FINANCIAL ACCEPTANCE, WELLS FARGO AUTO FINANCE, INC., WELLS FARGO FINANCIAL CAR, LLC, AND DOES 1-50, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Hon. Bernard Zimmerman

Settlement Conference Date: August 19, 2008

Time: 9:00 a.m.

Dept.: G

Complaint Date: November 20, 2007

WELL FARGO'S MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF TO REQUEST TO CHANGE DATE SET FOR MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 7-11, defendant Wells Fargo F inancial Missouri, Inc. submits this motion for administrative relief requesting that th e Court change the date currently set for the settlement conference for the following reasons:

1. On June 18, 2008 Judge Zimmerman issued an "Order S cheduling Settlement Conference" which set the date for August 19, 2008. (Bales Decl., ¶ 2.)

2. Counsel for Wells Fargo is not available on August 19, 2008 because of a mandatory settlement conference for another action which is set to take place in El Dorado County Superior Court and which was scheduled prior to Judge Zimmerman's order. (Bales Decl., ¶ 3.)

3. In light of the scheduling conflict, on June 18, 20 08 counsel for Wells Fargo, Peter H. Bales, sent an email to counsel for plaintiff as king if plaintiff would be willing to file a stipulation requesting that the Court change the da te set for the conference. Plaintiff's counsel responded on Friday, June 20 th stating that he would check his calendar. (Bales Decl., ¶ 4.)

4. On July 1, 2008, counsel for Wells Fargo sent a fol low-up email to counsel for plaintiff since counsel for Wells Fargo had not rec eived a substantive response to his June 18 th email asking if plaintiff was willing to stipulate to the request. Plaintiff's counsel never responded to the July 1 st email. (Bales Decl., ¶ 5.)

5. On Friday, July 11, 2008, counsel for Wells Fargo s ent a third and final email to determine whether plaintiff was willing to stipulat e to the request. The July 11 th email was sent only after plaintiff's counsel failed to respond to the July 1 st email and a telephone message that was left earlier in the week at counsel's office. This final email advised plaintiff that if Wells Fargo did not hear back by Monday July 14, 2008 reg arding plaintiff's willingness to agree to a stipulation Wells Fargo would file this motion. (B ales Decl., ¶ 6.)

6. Within minutes after the July 11 th email, plaintiff's counsel responded that he was "working on it." However, as of the date of this m otion plaintiff's counsel has failed to provide a response as to whether plaintiff is willing or is n ot willing to stipulate to this request. (Bales Decl., ¶ 7.)

7. Due to the scheduling conflict and plaintiff's fail ure to respond, Well Fargo submits this motion requesting that the Court chang e the date set for the settlement conference.

Wells Fargo requests the Court to set the settlemen t conference for one week following August 19, 2008, or August 26, 2008, if this ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.