Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-1_10-cv-00679/USCOURTS-cand-1_10-cv-00679-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

NO. C 10-00679 RS 

ORDER

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

*E-Filed 03/24/2010* 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

KAROL DAVENPORT, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

LITTON LOAN SERVICING, LP, a 

Delaware Corporation; WILMINGTON 

FINANCE, a business entity, form unknown; 

CREDIT-BASED ASSET SERVICING 

AND SECURITIZATION, LLC, a Delaware 

Corporation; COMMONWEALTH LAND 

TITLE COMPANY, a business entity, form 

unknown; U.S. BANK, NORTH AMERICA, 

a subsidiary of U.S. BANCORP; FIRST 

FINANCIAL & REAL ESTATE 

SERVICES, a California Corporation; and all 

persons unknown, claiming any legal or 

equitable right, title, estate, lien, or any 

interest in the property described in this 

complaint adverse to Plaintiff’s title thereto; 

and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, 

 Defendants. 

____________________________________/

No. C 10-00679 RS 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT 

 Defendants Litton Loan Servicing, LP; Credit-Based Asset Servicing and Securitization, 

LLC; and U.S. Bank, N.A., removed this case from Contra Costa County Superior Court on 

Case 1:10-cv-00679-NJV Document 17 Filed 03/24/10 Page 1 of 2
NO. C 10-00679 RS 

ORDER

2 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

February 17, 2010. On February 22, 2010, they filed an administrative motion for leave to file a 

motion to dismiss which would exceed Civil Local Rule 7-2(b)’s 25-page limit by five pages. 

Plaintiff has not opposed the administrative motion. See Civil Local Rule 7-11(b) (setting a four 

day deadline for oppositions to administrative motions). 

On February 26, 2010, before the Court had ruled on the administrative motion, defendants 

filed a 25 page motion to dismiss. It is, therefore, presumed that their pending motion to exceed the 

page limit is now moot. That motion is accordingly denied. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 03/24/2010 

RICHARD SEEBORG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:10-cv-00679-NJV Document 17 Filed 03/24/10 Page 2 of 2