arrow left
arrow right
  • Yen VS Mosser Civil Unlimited (Other Real Property (not emin...) document preview
  • Yen VS Mosser Civil Unlimited (Other Real Property (not emin...) document preview
  • Yen VS Mosser Civil Unlimited (Other Real Property (not emin...) document preview
  • Yen VS Mosser Civil Unlimited (Other Real Property (not emin...) document preview
  • Yen VS Mosser Civil Unlimited (Other Real Property (not emin...) document preview
  • Yen VS Mosser Civil Unlimited (Other Real Property (not emin...) document preview
  • Yen VS Mosser Civil Unlimited (Other Real Property (not emin...) document preview
  • Yen VS Mosser Civil Unlimited (Other Real Property (not emin...) document preview 
						
                                
Preview

                                ®                HOEY
MPTON LLP


                              ALAMEDA COUNTY
                                  AUG 25 2021
                         CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT

om
                         By   A lg        ta



IF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
[TY OF ALAMEDA

            Case No. RG21100261
half
ted,        Assigned for All Purposes to the
            Honorable Evelio M. Grillo

            STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
            ORDER TO EXTEND DEFENDANTS
            OAK 9 PORTFOLIO OWNER, LP, AND
            PACH AFFORDABLE HOLDINGS,
            LLC’S TIME TO RESPOND TO THE
30N         COMPLAINT
CE,

33
JN

IC.,
nd




                                               &
       js                     CASE NO. RG21100261
ND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND DEFENDANTS OAK9
.CH AFFORDABLE HOLDINGS, LLC TIME TO RESPOND TO
                                  THE COMPLAINT
@

Kaitlin Blanco, and Melina Tessier, on behalf of

ited (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) and Defendants Oak9

ble Holdings, LLC (“PACH” and together with Oak9,

ffs, the “Parties”), jointly, by and through their

ite and agree as follows:

omplaint in this case (the “Complaint”) on May 28,



ndants to be served with the summons and Complaint



xtended Defendants’ deadline to respond to the

respond to the Complaint is August 30, 2021;
d to extend Defendants’ deadline to respond to the

through and including September 13, 2021;

the Court to extend Defendants’ deadline to respond to

int time to assess and analyze the claims and defenses in

‘0 respond agreed to among Plaintiffs’ counsel and



tember 13, 2021, will not cause undue delay or

, particularly because there are no immediate case

he requested deadline;

‘alifornia Rule of Court 3.110, the Parties hereby

ich Defendants must respond to the Complaint is hereby




     9.                       CASE NO. RG21100261
\ND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND DEFENDANTS OAK9
\CH AFFORDABLE HOLDINGS, LLC TIME TO RESPOND TO
                                  THE COMPLAINT
RD, v4       RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP



            ANNA S. McLEAN
             JOSEPH P. SAKAI
          Attorneys for Defendants
<9 PORTFOLIO OWNER, LP, PACH AFFORDABLE
              HOLDINGS, LLC




AS LAW GROUP




               ROBERT SALINAS
                 ROCIO TORIZ
                ANNIE B. BANH
              Attorneys for Plaintiffs




  JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT




    a
\ND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND DEFENDANTS OAK9
10, LP AND PACH AFFORDABLE HOLDINGS, LLC TIME TO
                       RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT
a

JF OF SERVICE
A, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
} years of age and not a party to this action. I am
State of California. My business address is Four
isco, CA 94111-4109.

? the following document(s) described as:
DER TO EXTEND DEFENDANTS
D PACH AFFORDABLE HOLDINGS,
?OMPLAINT on the interested parties in this action as

      Attorneys for Plaintiffs
      AARON ROGACHEVSKY, ANGELA CHAN,
      DEIDRE O’SHEA, ELLIOTT WILLIAMS,
      KATHERINE ELIZABETH GALANOS,
      MOLLY JENKINS




C TRANSMISSION: I caused a co P
ess dcorpus@sheppardmullin.com to
ice List. I did not receive, within
                                         th of the
                                            € persons
                                     a reasonable
ic message or other indication that the

nent(s) in a sealed envelope or package addressed
he Service List and placed the envelope  for
dinary business practices. I am readi familiar
d processing correspondence for mailing. On the
2ed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the
ited States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope
ant or employed in the county where the mailing




    ths
@

‘under the laws of the State of California that the


San Francisco, California.




 D           Kb
          s L. Corpus