Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02837/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02837-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Fernandez
Plaintiff
Franklin Credit Management Corporation
Defendant

Document Text:

-1-

SECOND STIPULATION EXTENDING DEADLINE TO FILE DEFENDANT’S 

RESPONSIVE PLEADING TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 

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

WRIGHT, FINLAY & ZAK, LLP 

Robin P. Wright, Esq., SBN 150984 

Joshua R. Hernandez, Esq., SBN 258266 

4665 MacArthur Court, Suite 200

Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tel. (949) 477-5050; Fax (949) 608-9142 

jhernandez@wrightlegal.net

Attorneys for Defendant, FRANKLIN CREDIT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION 

UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DAVID FERNANDEZ, an individual and 

borrower, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

FRANKLIN CREDIT MANAGEMENT 

CORPORATION, a business entity; and DOES 

1 through 10 inclusive,

 Defendants. 

 Case No: 3:16-cv-02837-JCS 

Assigned to the Honorable: 

Joseph C. Spero

SECOND STIPULATION 

EXTENDING DEADLINE TO FILE 

DEFENDANT’S RESPONSIVE 

PLEADING TO PLAINTIFF’S 

COMPLAINT 

Pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-1

TO THE HONORABLE COURT AND ALL ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff DAVID FERNANDEZ (“Plaintiff”), and 

Defendant FRANKLIN CREDIT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION (“Defendant”), by and 

through their respective counsel of record, do hereby stipulate and agree as follows: 

1. This matter was removed to the above Court on May 26, 2016. 

2. Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s Complaint was initially due on June 2, 2016. 

However, Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a stipulation extending Defendant’s deadline to 

respond to the Complaint to July 1, 2016. On June 2, 2016, the Court approved this first 

stipulation.

Case 3:16-cv-02837-JCS Document 17 Filed 07/11/16 Page 1 of 2
-2-

SECOND STIPULATION EXTENDING DEADLINE TO FILE DEFENDANT’S 

RESPONSIVE PLEADING TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 

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

3. On June 2, 2016, the Court referred this case to the ADR Unit for the purpose of 

determining whether a loan modification would be a feasible resolution to the matter. 

4. On June 15, 2016 and June 27, 2016, two telephone conferences were held with 

the ADR Unit whereby Defendant agreed to accept and review Plaintiff’s application for a loan 

modification.

5. On June 28, 2016, Defendant conveyed an offer to place Plaintiff on a trial loan 

modification. Plaintiff has until July 28, 2016 to accept the offer. Plaintiff is currently 

reviewing the offer. 

6. A further telephone conference with the ADR Unit has been set for July 27, 2016 

to monitor the progress of the loan modification review. 

7. The Parties require additional time to complete the loan modification review, and 

would like to do so while limiting fees and costs incurred in litigation at this stage. 

8. Accordingly, Plaintiff and Defendant agree that Defendant’s deadline to respond 

to Plaintiff’s Complaint shall be extended from July 1, 2016 to August 1, 2016.

Respectfully submitted, 

 WRIGHT, FINLAY & ZAK, LLP 

Dated: June 29, 2016 By: s/ Joshua R. Hernandez, Esq. 

Joshua R. Hernandez, Esq. 

Attorneys for Defendant, FRANKLIN 

CREDIT MANAGEMENT 

CORPORATION 

 REAL ESTATE LAW CENTER, PC 

Dated: June 29, 2016 By: s/ Tala Rezai, Esq. 

Tala Rezai, Esq. 

Attorneys for Plaintiff, DAVID 

FERNANDEZ

Dated: July 11, 2016

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Judge Joseph C. Spero

Case 3:16-cv-02837-JCS Document 17 Filed 07/11/16 Page 2 of 2