Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-00152/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-00152-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

STACIE LONAKER, an individual; and 

MYRIAM LONAKER, an individual,

Plaintiffs,

v.

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., a 

business entity; and DOES 1 through 50, 

inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:14-cv-00152 HRL

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST FOR A CONTINUANCE

Having reviewed the parties’ declarations filed in response to its January 7 interim order,

1

the court denies plaintiff’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) request for a continuance. Plaintiff’s counsel’s 

declaration did not provide the requisite information, i.e., identification of specific facts and an 

explanation why those facts would preclude summary judgment. But, the upshot of the parties’ 

respective submissions is this: Although defendant previously indicated that more documents 

would be produced, defendant now represents that all relevant, responsive information requested 

by plaintiff has been produced (i.e., was produced on or before December 17). Defendant further 

represents that, apart from government mandated rules, it has no separate internal policies re loan 

modification review. And, all that plaintiff now wants is supplemental discovery responses from 

 1 The court does not condone plaintiff’s tardy submission, but nevertheless has considered it.

Case 5:14-cv-00152-HRL Document 49 Filed 01/12/15 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

defendant re the non-existence of separate internal policies---something that this court is told 

defendant has agreed to provide, albeit it may take some time to have defendant verify the 

supplemental discovery responses.

Defendant shall make every effort to provide the supplemental verified discovery 

responses to plaintiff in time for her to submit those responses along with her summary judgment 

opposition papers. Should the supplemental responses and verification not be received in time, 

plaintiff may submit those responses once they are received, even if they are received after the 

opposition filing deadline. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file her summary 

judgment opposition is otherwise denied.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 12, 2015

______________________________________

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:14-cv-00152-HRL Document 49 Filed 01/12/15 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

5:14-cv-00152-HRL Notice has been electronically mailed to:

David A. Owens owensd2@bryancave.com, melissa.honkanen@bryancave.com

Eunji Cho mellenlaw@yahoo.com

Jessica Ryan Galletta mellenlaw@yahoo.com

Matthew David Mellen mellenlaw@yahoo.com

Tina Laxmi Naicker naickert@bryancave.com, andersone@bryancave.com, 

daniel.rockey@bryancave.com

Case 5:14-cv-00152-HRL Document 49 Filed 01/12/15 Page 3 of 3