Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

United States v. Real Property Located at 10664 & 10683 Birchville Road

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


August 5, 2008

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PLAINTIFF,
v.
REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10664 & 10683 BIRCHVILLE ROAD, NEVADA CITY, CA, NEVADA COUNTY APN NOS.: 60-290-06 & 60-290-13, INCLUDING ALL APPURTENANCES AND IMPROVEMENTS THERETO, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. John A. Mendez United States District Judge

STIPULATION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER AND ORDER THEREON

Claimant, Patrick J. Cassidy, and Plaintiff, the United States of America, through undersigned counsel, hereby jointly request a modification of the Status (Pre-trial Scheduling) Order in order to continue settlement negotiations. As grounds therefore, the parties state the following:

1. The lienholder, MortgageIt, was served with the Complaint, and filed a Claim to the property and an Answer to the Complaint. The plaintiff and MortgageIt entered into a Stipulation for Expedited Settlement, which was approved by the Court on August 21, 2007. The lienholder was then excused from further participation in this action.

2. The Plaintiff and Claimant Patrick J. Cassidy completed discovery and have been engaged in good-faith settlement negotiations. They are making progress in settlement, but had to update the appraisal of the property because of the slump in the real estate market. Because the equity in the property is relatively low, the parties are trying to settle the case without having to incur additional attorneys fees and litigation costs briefing dispositive motions. They believe that, given this further 60-day extension of the motions deadline, they will probably be able to settle the case without having to file any dispositive motions.

3. Claimant Cassidy has kept the mortgage current, and promises to keep the mortgage current during this period. Counsel contacted the attorney for the lienholder, and his position was that since his client is no longer participating in the case (pursuant to the August 21, 2007 order), it would not oppose the extension of the motions deadline.

4. Accordingly, the parties propose that the dates set forth in the Status (Pre-trial Scheduling) Order be modified as follows:

EVENT CURRENT DATE PROPOSED DATE File dispositive motions August 6, 2008 October 8, 2008 Hearing on dispositive September 3, 2008 November 5, 2008 at 9 a.m. motions File Joint Final Pretrial October 10, 2008 December 12, 2008 Statement Final Pretrial Conference October 17, 2008 December 19, 2008 at 3:00 p.m.

Jury trial December 1, 2008 February 9, 2009 at 8:30 a.m.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Dated: August 1, 2008

BRENDA GRANTLAND, ESQ. Attorney for Claimant 20 Sunnyside Suite A-204 Mill Valley, CA 94941

Dated: August 1, 2008

McGREGOR W. SCOTT United States Attorney

KRISTIN S. DOOR Assistant U.S. Attorney Attorneys for Plaintiff United States of America

ORDER

The Status (Pre-trial Scheduling) Order is modified as follows; the last day for filing dispositive motions in October 8, 2008. Hearing on the motions will be on November 5, 2008, at 9:00 a.m. The parties' joint pretrial statement shall be filed on December 12, 2008. The final pretrial conference will be on December 19, 2008, at 3:00 p.m. Trial will be scheduled on February 9, 2009, at 8:30 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20080805

© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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