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.

Gary Gee, Roxanne Mazarakis v. Suntrust Mortgage

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION


August 24, 2011

GARY GEE, ROXANNE MAZARAKIS,
AND JODY SOTO, INDIVIDUALLY, ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, AND ON BEHALF OF
THE GENERAL PUBLIC,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, INC., AND
DOES 1-50, INCLUSIVE,
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Richard Seeborg United States District Judge

*E-Filed 8/24/11*

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME AND CONSOLIDATING HEARINGS ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTION TO DENY SUMMARY JUDGMENT

On August 11, 2011, plaintiffs Gary Gee, Roxanne Mazarakis, and Jody Soto filed a motion 21 for partial summary judgment against defendant SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. In response, SunTrust 22 separately noticed a motion requesting that the Court either defer consideration or deny plaintiffs' 23 motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d)(1). SunTrust also filed a motion under Civil Local Rule 6-3 to enlarge the time for it to file its response to plaintiffs' motion for summary 25 judgment until after the Court ruled on its later filed motion. SunTrust's request to enlarge time is 26 denied. Instead, the Court shall consolidate the hearings on plaintiffs' motion for partial summary 27 judgment and SunTrust's request to defer or deny it.

Accordingly, the Court amends the schedule on plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment as follows. If SunTrust wishes to supplement its opposition to plaintiffs' motion for 3 partial summary judgment to address grounds other than those set forth in its Rule 56(d) motion, it 4 must file any supplemental brief by September 1, 2011. Its supplemental brief shall be limited to 15 5 pages. Plaintiffs shall have until September 15, 2011 to file a reply that addresses SunTrust's Rule 56(d) argument, as well as any supplemental brief it files. Plaintiffs' reply shall be limited to 20 7 pages. The hearing presently scheduled on September 15, 2011 is vacated and oral argument on 8 these consolidated motions shall be heard on September 29, 2011 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 3.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20110824

© 1992-2011 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.