Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05108/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05108-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1345 Foreclosure

---

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

1

OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS

CASE NO. 15-cv-05108-EMC; PAGE __ OF __

Offices of Mark W. Lapham (SBN 146352)

Mark W. Lapham, Esq.

751 Diablo Rd.

Danville, CA 94526

Tel: (925) 837-9007

Fax: (650) 738-0375

Attorney for Plaintiff,

PENNY SLINGER HILLS

 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

PENNY SLINGER HILLS, an individual

Plaintiff,

v.

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC 

REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., a 

Delaware Corporation; CITI, a New York 

Corporation, ITS SUCCESSORS AND 

ASSIGNS; NATIONAL DEFAULT 

SERVICING CORPORATION, an Arizona 

Corporation, as Trustee for BANK OF NEW 

YORK as Trustee for the STRUCTURED 

ASSET SECURITIES CORPORATION 

MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH 

CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2003-24A; and

DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 15-cv-05108-EMC

STIPULATION BETWEEN PLAINTIFF 

AND DEFENDANTS TO ACCEPT 

UNTIMELY FILED AMENDED 

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S 

AMENDED COMPLAINT; CERTIFICATE 

OF SERVICE

Date: February 3, 2016

Time: 9:30 a.m.

Courtroom: 5, 17th Floor

Honorable Judge: Edward M. Chen

///

Case 3:15-cv-05108-EMC Document 28 Filed 01/15/16 Page 1 of 4
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

2

OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS

CASE NO. 15-cv-05108-EMC; PAGE __ OF __

IT IS STIPULATED by and between the parties, Plaintiff PENNY SLINGER 

HILLS, and Defendants MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.; 

CITIMORTGAGE, INC., ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS; and BANK OF NEW YORK as 

Trustee for the STRUCTURED ASSET SECURITIES CORPORATION MORTGAGE PASSTHROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2003-24A (“Defendants”), as follows:

On December 17, 2015, Defendants filed their Notice of Motion and Motion to 

Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (“MTD”), filed on December 2, 2015 (Docket No. 

13)

Though Plaintiff timely filed her Opposition to Defendants’ MTD on December 31, 

2015 (Docket No. 21), Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Associate, who was given the responsibility to 

complete legal work product for Plaintiff’s Opposition to MTD was in a three-car accident 

on highway 99 on December 27, 2015 in Madera, CA, in which his car was totaled and his 

six-year old son was hospitalized in three different hospitals in the first 48 hours of his fourday hospitalization (from December 28-December 31, 2015), in the cities of Bakersfield and 

Madera. He attempted to complete the Opposition timely (with 3.5 hours of sleep from 

12/28-12/31/ 2015), including the Statement of Facts, but was unable to complete the draft 

of the Opposition to MTD by the time it was due to be filed.

Plaintiff filed her Amended Opposition with this Court on January 6, 2016 (Docket 

No. 23).

Defendants did not object to Plaintiff’s late filing of her Amended Opposition to 

MTD.

Plaintiff and Defendants hereby stipulate that Plaintiff’s untimely filed Amended 

Opposition to MTD be considered filed timely by this Honorable Court.

Defendants have no objection to the request for extension by Plaintiff for this Court to 

consider her Amended Opposition to MTD, as filed timely.

Case 3:15-cv-05108-EMC Document 28 Filed 01/15/16 Page 2 of 4
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

3

OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS

CASE NO. 15-cv-05108-EMC; PAGE __ OF __

Defendants have already timely filed their Reply Brief with the Court as Docket No. 

25.

Plaintiff has not previously received, nor requested, an extension of any kind in this 

case.

THEREFORE, IT IS STIPULATED that Plaintiff’s Amended Opposition to MTD, 

which was filed on January 6, 2016, be considered timely filed by Plaintiff.

DATED: January 14, 2016 LAW OFFICES OF MARK W. LAPHAM

 __________/s/______________________

Mark Lapham. Esq.

Attorney for Plaintiff

DATED: January 14, 2016 WRIGHT, FINLAY & ZAK, LLP

 _______/s/_________________________

Todd E. Chvat

Attorney for Defendants

IT IS SO ORDERED: 

________________ 

Edward M. Chen 

U.S. District Judge

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Edward M. Chen

Case 3:15-cv-05108-EMC Document 28 Filed 01/15/16 Page 3 of 4
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

4

OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS

CASE NO. 15-cv-05108-EMC; PAGE __ OF __

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on January 14, 2016, I caused a copy of the foregoing to be filed electronically and 

that the document is available for viewing and downloading from the ECF system. Participants in 

the case who are registered CM/ECF users will be served by the CM/ECF system. 

By: /s Mark W. Lapham

LAW OFFICES OF MARK W. LAPHAM

marklapham@sbcglobal.net

Case 3:15-cv-05108-EMC Document 28 Filed 01/15/16 Page 4 of 4