Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Hartridge Homeowners Association

D. Nevada

Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Hartridge Homeowners Association

DecidedSeptember 23, 2019

Docket2:16-cv-02825

StatusUnknown

This text of Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Hartridge Homeowners Association (Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Hartridge Homeowners Association) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Hartridge Homeowners Association, (D. Nev. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC, et al., 11 Case No.: 2:16-cv-02825-JAD-NJK Plaintiff(s), 12 Order v. 13 [Docket No. 71] HARTRIDGE HOMEOWNERS 14 ASSOCIATION, et al., 15 Defendant(s). 16 This case was filed nearly three years ago. See Docket No. 1. On June 6, 2019, the Court 17 entered an order setting a discovery cutoff of September 23, 2019. Docket No. 56. The Court 18 made clear that the parties should use the intervening months wisely because, “GIVEN THE AGE 19 OF THIS CASE, THE COURT IS NOT INCLINED TO GRANT ANY EXTENSIONS.” Id. 20 at 5 (emphasis in original). On September 20, 2019, the business day before the discovery cutoff, 21 the parties filed a stipulation seeking a 45-day extension to the discovery cutoff and subsequent 22 deadlines. Docket No. 71. The stipulation indicates that two depositions were set for the day of 23 the cutoff and that the deponents are not available. See id. No further elaboration is provided. 24 Moreover, the subject deposition notices were served on September 5, 2019, and the Court fails to 25 discern why the parties need until November 7, 2019 (i.e., two months), to find available deposition 26 dates. Instead, difficulty in scheduling the depositions warrants a 14-day extension. Cf. Charm 27 Floral v. Wald Imports, Ltd., 2012 WL 424581, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 9, 2012) (“more than one 28 week’s notice generally is considered reasonable”). 1 Accordingly, the stipulation to extend is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The 2|| discovery cutoff is hereby EXTENDED to October 7, 2019, for the limited purpose of completing 3|| the identified depositions. No other deadlines set forth in the scheduling order are extended. NO 4| FURTHER EXTENSIONS WILL BE GRANTED. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: September 23, 2019 7 7 A . Nancy J> e 8 United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC, et al., 11 Case No.: 2:16-cv-02825-JAD-NJK Plaintiff(s), 12 Order v. 13 [Docket No. 71] HARTRIDGE HOMEOWNERS 14 ASSOCIATION, et al., 15 Defendant(s). 16 This case was filed nearly three years ago. See Docket No. 1. On June 6, 2019, the Court 17 entered an order setting a discovery cutoff of September 23, 2019. Docket No. 56. The Court 18 made clear that the parties should use the intervening months wisely because, “GIVEN THE AGE 19 OF THIS CASE, THE COURT IS NOT INCLINED TO GRANT ANY EXTENSIONS.” Id. 20 at 5 (emphasis in original). On September 20, 2019, the business day before the discovery cutoff, 21 the parties filed a stipulation seeking a 45-day extension to the discovery cutoff and subsequent 22 deadlines. Docket No. 71. The stipulation indicates that two depositions were set for the day of 23 the cutoff and that the deponents are not available. See id. No further elaboration is provided. 24 Moreover, the subject deposition notices were served on September 5, 2019, and the Court fails to 25 discern why the parties need until November 7, 2019 (i.e., two months), to find available deposition 26 dates. Instead, difficulty in scheduling the depositions warrants a 14-day extension. Cf. Charm 27 Floral v. Wald Imports, Ltd., 2012 WL 424581, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 9, 2012) (“more than one 28 week’s notice generally is considered reasonable”). 1 Accordingly, the stipulation to extend is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The 2|| discovery cutoff is hereby EXTENDED to October 7, 2019, for the limited purpose of completing 3|| the identified depositions. No other deadlines set forth in the scheduling order are extended. NO 4| FURTHER EXTENSIONS WILL BE GRANTED. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: September 23, 2019 7 7 A . Nancy J> e 8 United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Hartridge Homeowners Association, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bayview-loan-servicing-llc-v-hartridge-homeowners-association-nvd-2019.