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

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

---

1

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND 

TIME TO RESPOND TO FAC

CASE NO. 14-2662-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

Amy M. Spicer (SBN 188399)

One Market, Spear Street Tower

San Francisco, CA 94105-1126

Tel: 415.442.1000

Fax: 415.963.1001

E-mail: aspicer@morganlewis.com

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

Joseph Duffy (SBN 241854)

300 South Grand Avenue

Twenty-Second Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132

Tel: 213.612.2500

Fax: 213.612.2501

Email: jduffy@morganlewis.com

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. 14-2662-TLN-EFB 

STIPULATION TO EXTEND 

TIME FOR DEFENDANT 

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. 

TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

AND ORDER

Case 2:14-cv-02662-TLN-EFB Document 32 Filed 03/30/15 Page 1 of 4
2

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND 

TIME TO RESPOND TO FAC

CASE NO. 14-2662-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. On February 18, 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 

Case 2:14-cv-02662-TLN-EFB Document 32 Filed 03/30/15 Page 2 of 4
3

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND 

TIME TO RESPOND TO FAC

CASE NO. 14-2662-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

No. 27.) The Court entered an order approving the Parties’ stipulation on February 

19, 2015. (Docket No. 28.) JPMC’s current deadline to respond to the First 

Amended Complaint is March 25, 2015.

G. As of March 24, 2015, the Court has not yet ruled on Plaintiff’s 

request for leave to file the second amended complaint.

H. The Parties are engaged in discussions regarding options for resolving 

the case without further litigation. In view of Plaintiff’s pending request for leave 

to amend the operative complaint and the Parties’ on-going discussions, the Parties 

have agreed to extend the time for JPMC to respond to Plaintiff’s First Amended 

Complaint to and including May 18, 2015.

I. This is the Parties’ fourth request for an extension of time to respond 

to the First Amended Complaint. 

IT IS THEREFOR STIPULATED that JPMC shall have to and including 

May 18, 2015 to respond to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.

Dated: March 24, 2015 FRANZ LAW

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

on March 24, 2015)

Pamela M. Schuur

Attorneys for Plaintiff

VLADIMIR RIVKIN

Dated: March 24, 2015 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

By: /s/ Amy M. Spicer

Amy M. Spicer

Attorneys for Defendant

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. 

Case 2:14-cv-02662-TLN-EFB Document 32 Filed 03/30/15 Page 3 of 4
4

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND 

TIME TO RESPOND TO FAC

CASE NO. 14-2662-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: March 27, 2015

Case 2:14-cv-02662-TLN-EFB Document 32 Filed 03/30/15 Page 4 of 4