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.

The Charles Schwab Corporation v. Bnp Paribas Securities Corp. Et Al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA -- SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION


December 3, 2010

THE CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF,
v.
BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES CORP. ET AL. DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Susan Illston United States District Court Judge

MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP

Marc T.G. Dworsky (SB# 157413)

James C. Rutten (SB# 201791)

Daniel R. McCarthy (SB# 255732)

355 South Grand Avenue, 35th floor Los Angeles, California 90071-1560

(213) 683-9100; (213) 687-3702 (fax) marc.dworsky@mto.com james.rutten@mto.com daniel.mccarthy@mto.com

MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP

David H. Fry (SB# 189276)

Carolyn V. Zabrycki (SB# 263541)

560 Mission Street, 27th floor San Francisco, California 94105-2907

(415) 512-4000; (415) 512-4077 (fax) david.fry@mto.com carolyn.zabrycki@mto.com

Attorneys for Defendants WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. and WELLS FARGO ASSET SECURITIES CORPORATION

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT

[Declaration of James C. Rutten filed concurrently herewith]

WHEREAS on August 2, 2010, Plaintiff filed its Amended Complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco;

WHEREAS on September 8, 2010, Defendants removed the case to this Court;

WHEREAS on September 14, 2010, the parties submitted stipulations, which the Court thereafter approved, providing that Defendants would have until December 13, 2010 to answer, 6 move against, or otherwise respond to the Amended Complaint;

WHEREAS on October 1, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand this case to state court, which currently is scheduled to be heard on February 25, 2011;

WHEREAS the parties believe that in the interests of judicial efficiency and the orderly administration of the case, it makes sense for the Motion to Remand to be addressed before Defendants are required to respond to the Amended Complaint;

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED BY AND AMONG THE PARTIES

HERETO AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD THAT Defendants shall have until 30 days 14 after entry of any order denying the Motion to Remand to answer, move against, or otherwise 15 respond to the Amended Complaint, without prejudice to their right to seek adjournment or additional time from the Court in which to do so.

Respectfully submitted,

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED:

DATED:

20101203

© 1992-2010 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.