Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00471/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00471-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract

---

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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAMISONI VIRIVIRI, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

AFFINITY DEFAULT SERVICES, LLC, 

et al, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:20-cv-00471 TLN AC PS 

ORDER 

 This matter was removed from state court, and the plaintiff is appearing in pro se. The 

action was accordingly referred to the undersigned by Local Rule 302(c)(21). On March 6, 2020, 

defendants U.S. Bank NA and Nationstar Mortgage, LLC filed a motion for an extension of time 

to respond to the complaint, seeking a revised deadline of March 30, 2020. ECF No. 5. The 

motion states that plaintiff has not responded to a request for a stipulation, and that this is the first 

request for an extension of time, and an extension is necessary due to the voluminous nature of 

plaintiff’s complaint. Id. at 3-4. The motion is noticed for hearing April 15, 2020. Id. Plaintiff 

has not responded to the motion. 

 Local Rule 144(c) provides for an initial ex parte extension of time where counsel certifies 

that a stipulation could not be reasonably obtained and provides the reason an extension is 

necessary. Rather than utilizing this rule, counsel noticed a motion for a hearing date that would 

Case 2:20-cv-00471-TLN-AC Document 6 Filed 03/12/20 Page 1 of 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 

2 

take place two weeks after the extended deadline they requested. Because this creates an illogical 

situation, the court will construe defendants’ motion as an initial ex parte request pursuant to the 

Local Rules, grant the extension of time, and vacate the hearing. Defendants must file their 

response by March 30, 2020. 

Finally, the court directs defendants’ attention to Local Rule 110, which provides that 

failure to comply with the Local Rules “may be grounds for imposition of any and all sanctions 

authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” In the future all parties 

will be expected to adhere to the Local Rules of this court. 

 Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The motion hearing set for April 15, 2020 is VACATED; 

2. Defendants’ ex parte motion (ECF No. 5) is GRANTED: and 

3. Defendants must file their response to plaintiff’s complaint by March 30. 2020. 

DATED: March 12, 2020 

Case 2:20-cv-00471-TLN-AC Document 6 Filed 03/12/20 Page 2 of 2