Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01355/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01355-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

STIPULATION TO ENLARGE TIME IN WHICH DEFENDANT 

LITTON LOAN SERVICING LP MAY RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

1

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

K&L GATES LLP

10100 Santa Monica Blvd., 7th Floor

Los Angeles, California 90067

Telephone: 310.552.5000

Facsimile: 310.552.5001

Matthew B. O’Hanlon (SBN 253648)

matthew.ohanlon@klgates.com

K&L GATES LLP

State Street Financial Center

One Lincoln Street

Boston, Massachusetts 02111

Telephone: 617.261.3100

Facsimile: 617.261.3175

R. Bruce Allensworth, pro hac vice pending

bruce.allensworth@klgates.com

Brian M. Forbes, pro hac vice pending

brian.m.forbes@klgates.com

Gregory N. Blase, pro hac vice pending

gregory.blase@klgates.com

Attorneys for Litton Loan Servicing LP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (FRESNO DIVISION)

JOHN SINGH, an individual, as,

Plaintiff,

vs.

LITTON LOAN SERVICING LP a Texas 

Corporation; MERSCORP, INC, a Virginia 

Corporation; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC 

REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., a 

subsidiary of MERSCORP., Inc., a Delaware 

corporation; and DOES individuals 1-100, 

inclusive, and ROES corporations 1 to 30, 

inclusive, and all other persons and entities 

unknown claiming any right, title, estate, lien or 

interest in the real property described in the 

Complaint adverse to plaintiff’s ownership, or 

any cloud upon plaintiff’s title thereto,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:10-cv-01355-LJO-GSA

STIPULATION TO ENLARGE TIME IN 

WHICH DEFENDANT LITTON LOAN 

SERVICING LP MAY RESPOND TO 

COMPLAINT; ORDER THEREON

Pursuant to Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 144(a) of the 

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Litton Loan Servicing LP 

Case 1:10-cv-01355-LJO-GSA Document 20 Filed 08/03/10 Page 1 of 4
STIPULATION TO ENLARGE TIME IN WHICH DEFENDANT 

LITTON LOAN SERVICING LP MAY RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

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

(“Litton”), through its counsel and plaintiff in pro per John Singh (“Singh” or “plaintiff”) (Litton and 

Singh are, at times herein, referred to collectively as the “parties”) stipulate to enlarge the time in 

which Litton may respond to plaintiff’s Complaint until the later of: (1) fourteen (14) days after the 

Court denies Litton’s Motion to Stay (Docket No. 17); (2) if the Court allows the Motion to Stay, 

thirty (30) days after the MDL Panel rules on Litton’s request that this matter be consolidated for pretrial proceedings with the multidistrict litigation proceeding styled In re Mortgage Electronic 

Registration Systems, Inc. Litigation, No. 2:09-md-2119 (D. Ariz.) (“MERS MDL”); or (3) thirty (30) 

days after Judge Teilborg, the judge presiding over the MERS MDL decides which, if any, of the 

causes of action in the Complaint should be adjudicated by this Court. 

Pursuant to Local Rule 144(a), the parties respectfully request that the Court enter this 

Stipulation as an Order of the Court. In support hereof, the parties state as follows:

1. Plaintiff filed this action in the Superior Court for Fresno County, State of California 

on or about May 28, 2010. Plaintiff served Litton with a copy of the Summons and Complaint on 

July 15, 2010.

2. On July 27, 2010, Litton removed this action to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1331, 1332(a), 1441, and 1446. See Docket No. 2.

3. Pursuant to Rule 81(c)(2)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Litton’s response 

to the Complaint is currently due to be filed on or before Thursday, August 5, 2010 (i.e. 21 days after 

Litton was served with the Summons and Complaint).

4. On July 29, 2010, Litton tagged this case for transfer to the MERS MDL by filing a 

Notice of Tag-Along with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation. See Docket No. 16.

5. On July 30, 2010, Litton filed a Motion to Stay, in which motion Litton requests that 

the Court stay this action until after the MERS MDL court determines which, if any, of plaintiff’s 

claims should be adjudicated in this forum. See Docket No. 17.

6. As further set forth in Litton’s Notice of Tag Along and Motion to Stay, this case is 

likely to be consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in the MERS MDL, and some or all of plaintiff’s 

claims will likely be adjudicated in that forum.

Case 1:10-cv-01355-LJO-GSA Document 20 Filed 08/03/10 Page 2 of 4
STIPULATION TO ENLARGE TIME IN WHICH DEFENDANT 

LITTON LOAN SERVICING LP MAY RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

3

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

7. In order to preserve the resources of the parties and of the Court, the parties stipulate 

and agree that the deadline for Litton to respond to the Complaint should be enlarged until the later of: 

(1) fourteen (14) days after the Court denies the Motion to Stay (Docket No. 17); (2) if the Court 

allows the Motion to Stay, thirty (30) days after the MDL Panel rules on Litton’s request that this 

matter be consolidated for pre-trial proceedings with the MERS MDL; or (3) thirty (30) days after 

Judge Teilborg, the judge presiding over the MERS MDL decides which, if any, of the causes of 

action in the Complaint should be adjudicated by this Court.

8. Litton and plaintiff have both agreed to the enlargement requested herein, and, 

accordingly, neither party will be prejudiced if the Court allows and enters this Stipulation.

WHEREFORE, Litton and plaintiff: (a) stipulate that the deadline for Litton to respond to the 

Complaint is enlarged until the later of: (1) fourteen (14) days after the Court denies the Motion to 

Stay (Docket No. 17); (2) if the Court allows the Motion to Stay, thirty (30) days after the MDL Panel 

rules on Litton’s request that this matter be consolidated for pre-trial proceedings with the MERS 

MDL; or (3) thirty (30) days after Judge Teilborg, the judge presiding over the MERS MDL decides 

which, if any, of the causes of action in the Complaint should be adjudicated by this Court; and (b) 

respectfully request that the Court enter this Stipulation as an Order of the Court.

Respectfully submitted,

K&L GATES LLP

Dated: August 2, 2010 By: /s/ Matthew B. O’Hanlon

Matthew B. O’Hanlon (SBN 253648)

Attorneys for Litton Loan Servicing LP

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: July 30, 2010 By: /s/ John Singh (with permission) 

John Singh, plaintiff in pro per

Case 1:10-cv-01355-LJO-GSA Document 20 Filed 08/03/10 Page 3 of 4
STIPULATION TO ENLARGE TIME IN WHICH DEFENDANT 

LITTON LOAN SERVICING LP MAY RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

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

IT IS SO ORDERED,

Dated: August 3, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-01355-LJO-GSA Document 20 Filed 08/03/10 Page 4 of 4