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.

Ren v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

December 13, 2013

BING TING REN, Plaintiff,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., a business The entity, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants.

SEVERSON & WERSON A Professional Corporation, MARY KATE SULLIVAN (State Bar No. 180203), MEGAN C. KELLY, ESQ., (State Bar No. 251293), Attorneys for Defendant, WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.

MELLEN LAW FIRM, Sarah Adelaars, Esq., Attorneys for Plaintiff BING TING REN.

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RELATED DATES Action Filed

SAMUEL CONTI, District Judge.

JOINT STIPULATION

Plaintiff Bing Ting Ren ("Plaintiff") and Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Defendant"), by and through their counsel of record, hereby stipulate and agree as follows:

1. Plaintiff commenced the above-referenced action on December 19, 2013 in the

Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo. Defendant removed the matter to the United States District Court, Northern District of California on January 22, 2013. Defendant subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss the original Complaint.

Prior to the hearing on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on or around March 4, 2013. In response, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint. On June 7, 2013, the Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff was granted leave to amend two of her claims.

On July 3, 2013, Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint. Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Portions of the Second Amended Complaint. While the Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint was pending, the parties appeared for a status conference and the matter was set for trial on March 24, 2014.

Then, on September 24, 2013, the Court issued an Order granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Portions of the Second Amended Complaint. As a result of the Court's Order, only Plaintiff's Promissory Estoppel and Violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 are at issue.

To date, the parties have exchanged written discovery and Defendant has deposed Plaintiff and Plaintiff's husband. Additionally, the parties continue to communicate regarding the possibility of an informal resolution of the matter.

2. The parties hereby request a continuance of the March 24, 2014 trial and all related dates. Defendant's counsel has another, unrelated matter, pending the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo ( Bootman v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. The Bootman action is also scheduled for trial on March 24, 2014.[1]Plaintiff's counsel is also in favor of a continuance of the trial date in this matter.

3. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) allows a court to modify a scheduling order "for good cause and with the judge's consent." In light of Defendant's counsel's calendar conflict and Plaintiff's counsel's parallel interest in a continuance, good cause for the continuance exists. The parties hereby stipulate to, and respectfully request ...


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.