Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02662/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02662-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1444 Petition for Removal- Foreclosure

---

DB2/ 30870614.1

1

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND 

TIME TO RESPOND TO SAC

CASE NO. 2:14-CV-02662-TLN-EFB

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

MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

Joseph Duffy, Bar No. 241854

jduffy@morganlewis.com

Joseph Bias, Bar No. 257127

joseph.bias@morganlewis.com

300 South Grand Avenue

Twenty-Second Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132

Tel: +1.213.612.2500

Fax: +1.213.612.2501

Attorneys for Defendant

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SACRAMENTO 

DIVISION

VLADIMIR RIVKIN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., a 

New York association; FAY 

SERVICING LLC, a Delaware limited 

liability company; ALBERTELLI LAW 

PARTNERS CALIFORNIA, PA, a 

California corporation,, and DOES 1 

through 10,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:14-cv-02662-TLN-EFB

STIPULATION TO EXTEND 

TIME FOR DEFENDANT 

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. 

TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S 

SECOND AMENDED 

COMPLAINT AND ORDER

Case 2:14-cv-02662-TLN-EFB Document 53 Filed 12/06/16 Page 1 of 5
DB2/ 30870614.1

2

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND 

TIME TO RESPOND TO SAC

CASE NO. 2:14-CV-02662-TLN-EFB

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

MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

Plaintiff Vladimir Rivkin (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, 

N.A. (“JPMC” and with Plaintiff, the “Parties”), hereby enter into this Stipulation 

to Extend Time for Defendant to Respond to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint 

with reference to the following facts:

RECITALS

A. On or about October 16 2014, Plaintiff commenced an action in the 

Superior Court for the County of Nevada entitled Rivkin v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, 

N.A., et al., Case Number TCU14-5931 (the “State Court Action”).

B. On or around October 23, 2014, Plaintiff served the Summons and 

First Amended Complaint on JPMC.

C. On November 14, 2014, JPMC timely removed the State Court Action 

to this Court.

D. On November 25, 2014, the Parties entered into a stipulation to extend 

the time for JPMC to respond to the First Amended Complaint to allow the Plaintiff 

and co-defendant Fay Servicing LLC to engage in discussions regarding the then 

pending Trustee’s Sale and in view of the possibility of Plaintiff filing a second 

amended complaint. 

E. On January 8, 2015, Plaintiff filed a request for leave to file a second 

amended complaint. (Docket No. 21.) 

F. On January 21, 2015, the Parties entered into a further stipulation to 

extend the time for JPMC to respond to the First Amended Complaint in view of 

Plaintiff’s pending request for leave to file a second amended complaint. (Docket 

No. 25.) The Court entered an order approving the Parties’ stipulation on January 

22, 2015. (Docket No. 26.) 

G. The Parties then entered into four further stipulations to extend the 

time for JPMC to respond to the First Amended Complaint in view of Plaintiff’s 

pending request for leave to file a second amended complaint and their ongoing 

Case 2:14-cv-02662-TLN-EFB Document 53 Filed 12/06/16 Page 2 of 5
DB2/ 30870614.1

3

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND 

TIME TO RESPOND TO SAC

CASE NO. 2:14-CV-02662-TLN-EFB

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

MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

settlement discussions. (Docket Nos. 27, 31, 36 & 38.) The Court entered orders 

approving the Parties’ stipulations. (Docket Nos. 28, 32, 37, & 39.) 

H. On September 3, 2015, JPMC filed a motion to dismiss the First 

Amended Complaint (the “Motion”). (Docket. No. 40). 

I. The Court took the Motion under submission on October 6, 2015. 

(Docket No. 45). 

J. In late August of 2016, the primary attorney handling this matter for 

JPMC, Joseph Quattrocchi, passed away. 

K. On October 18, 2016, the Court granted the Motion but permitted

Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. 

L. On October 31, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint.

M. To provide new counsel for JPMC sufficient time to review the matter 

and prepare a response to the Second Amended Complaint, the Parties have agreed 

to extend JPMC’s deadline for responding to the Second Amended Complaint up to 

and including December 9, 2016. 

IT IS THEREFOR STIPULATED that JPMC shall have up to and including 

December 9, 2016 to respond to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint.

Case 2:14-cv-02662-TLN-EFB Document 53 Filed 12/06/16 Page 3 of 5
DB2/ 30870614.1

4

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND 

TIME TO RESPOND TO SAC

CASE NO. 2:14-CV-02662-TLN-EFB

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

MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

Dated December 1, 2016 FRANZ LAW

By: /s/ Pamela M. Schuur (as authorized 

on December __, 2016)

Pamela M. Schuur

Attorneys for Plaintiff

VLADIMIR RIVKIN

Dated: December 1, 2016 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

By: /s/ Joseph Bias

Joseph Duffy

Joseph Bias

Attorneys for Defendant

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. 

Case 2:14-cv-02662-TLN-EFB Document 53 Filed 12/06/16 Page 4 of 5
DB2/ 30870614.1

5

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND 

TIME TO RESPOND TO SAC

CASE NO. 2:14-CV-02662-TLN-EFB

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

MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 5, 2016

Case 2:14-cv-02662-TLN-EFB Document 53 Filed 12/06/16 Page 5 of 5