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

ui ARCA L. THEODORE SCHELEY tscheley@clappmoroney.com X. JACKSON ZHOU, ESQ. IIl., (BAR ESQ. NO. (BAR NO. 278160) 148916) ALAMEDA COUNTY *y HN xzhou@clappmoroney.com SEP 2 3 2021 CLAPP, MORONEY, VUCINICH, BEEMAN and SCHELEY crierKx —L BEARD COURT & W A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION By ( Deputy F&F 1111 Bayhill Drive, Suite 300 San Bruno, CA 94066 mn (650) 989-5400 (650) 989-5499 FAX $ =N QQ. SD Attorneys for Defendants NEVEO MOSSER, MOSSER COMPANIES, INC., S&S 4 553 SYCAMORE STREET ASSOCIATES, LP, wl 1428 JACKSON STREET ASSOCIATES, LP, o OAK 406 VAN BUREN AVE PROPERTY, LLC, 10 OAK-553 SYCAMORE, LLC, OAK 1425 HARRISON STREET PROPERTY, LLC and OAK-1428 JACKSON, LLC 11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 12 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA ~ UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION 13 14 15 ANDREW YEN; JAMES BALL; KAITLIN Case No. RG2110026] BLANCO, and MELINA TESSIER, on behalf 16 of themselves and allothers similarly situated, Case Assigned to Hon. Evelio Grillo in Dept. 21 for all Purposes 17 Plaintiffs, 18 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] VS. ORDER TO EXTEND DEFENDANTS 19 NEVEO MOSSER, MOSSER NEVEO MOSSER; THE MOSSER COMPANIES, INC., 553 SYCAMORE 20 COMPANIES, INC.; 553 SYCAMORE STREET ASSOCIATES, LP, STREET ASSOCIATES, LP; 1428 1428 JACKSON STREET ASSOCIATES, 21 LP, OAK 406 VAN BUREN AVE JACKSON STREET ASSOCIATES, LP; PROPERTY, LLC, OAK-553 CONSERVE, LLC; FPI MANAGEMENT, SYCAMORE, LLC, OAK 1425 22 INC.; OAK9 PORTFOLIO OWNER, LP; HARRISON STREET PROPERTY, LLC 23 OAK 406 VAN BUREN AVE PROPERTY, AND OAK-1428 JACKSON, LLC’S TIME LLC; OAK-553 SYCAMORE, LLC; OAK TO RESPOND TO THE FIRST 24 AMENDED COMPLAINT poll 1425 HARRISON STREET PROPERTY, LLC; OAK-1428 JACKSON, LLC; PACH 25 AFFORDABLE HOLDINGS, LLC; YARDI Complaint filed: 05/25/2021 26 SYSTEMS, INC.; YES ENERGY First Amended Complaint filed: 06/28/2021 MANAGEMENT, INC.; DOES one through Ag 27 five hundred, Trial date: None set XD 28 Defendants. ] STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND DEFENDANTS’ TIME TO RESPOND TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiffsand Defendants Neveo Mosser, The Mosser Companies, Inc.,553 Sycamore Street Associates, LP, 1428 Jackson Street Associates, LP, Gak 406 Van Buren Ave Property, LLC, Oak-553 Sycamore, LLC, Oak 1425 Harrison Street Property, LLC and Oak-1428 Jackson, LLC ("Defendants,” and collectively with Plaintiffs,the "Parties”),jointly,by and through their respective counsel of record,hereby stipulate and agree as follows: WHEREAS, Plaintiffsfiledtheir Complaint inthis case on May 25, 2021, and their First Amended Complaint in thiscase on June 28, 2021 (the “Complaints"); WHEREAS, Plaintiffscaused Defendantsto be served with thesummons and Complaints jon July (2, 2021; WHEREAS, Defendants only recently obtained outside counsel; WHEREAS, Plaintiffspreviously extended Defendants’ deadline to respond to theFirst Amended Complaint such thatthe current lastday to respond to the Complaint isSeptember 13, 2021; WHEREAS, the Partieshave agreed to extend Defendants’ deadline to respond to the First Amended Complaint by an additional period of time, through and including October 4, 2021; WHEREAS, good cause exists forthe Court toextend Defendants’ deadline torespond to the FirstAmended Complaint toallow Defendants sufficient time toassess and analyze the claims and defenses in thismatter; WHEREAS, an extension untilOctober 4, 2021, will not cause undue delay or prejudice to any of the Parties or theCourt, particularlybecause there are no immediate case related deadlines that willbe impacted by the requested deadline; | NOW THEREFORE, pursuant toCalifornia Rule of Court 3.110, the Partieshereby stipulateand agrec that the time within which Defendants must respond to the FirstAmended Complaint ishereby extended toOctober 4, 2021. IT 1S SO STIPULATED. /ff /// 2 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]ORDER TO EXTEND DEFENDANTS’ TIME TO'RESPOND TO THE FIRSTAMENDED COMPLAINT Dated: September 9,2021 CLAPP, MORONEY, VUCINICH, BEEMAN een and SCHELEY BN By: BR L. THEODORE SCHELEY I, ESQ X. JACKSON ZHOU, ESQ UM Attorneys for Defendants NEVEO MOSSER, MOSSER SO COMPANIES, INC., 353 SYCAMORE STREET ASSOCIATES, LP, sem Abe N tas NHN 5 rneeneebesanniyns © 1428 JACKSON STREET ASSOCIATES, LP, CG OAK 406 VAN BUREN AVE PROPERTY, LLC, om © ed OAK-553 SYCAMORE, LLC, OAK 1425 HARRISON STREET PROPERTY, LLC. and OAK-1428 bo Ce JACKSON, LLC Sno a oot tad Dated: September J,2021 SALINAS LAW GROUP e de Fhe ak at aay LELEL. sespene ROBERT SALINAS ROCIO TORIZ ANNIE B. BANH Attorneys for Plamtiffs Noes MoM NN Rk PD ea) BR WD 3 i) “a ko ae 3 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]ORDER TO EXTEND DEFENDANTS’ TIME TO RESPOND TO THE FIRSTAMENDED COMPLAINT (PRGEQSED| ORDER PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, AND GOOD CAUSE APPEARING THEREFORE: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The deadline for Defendants Neveo. Mosser, The Mosser Companies, Inc., 553 Sycamore Street Associates; LP, 1428 Jackson Street Associates, LP, Oak 406 Van Buren Ave Property, LLC, Oak-553 Sycamore, LLC, Oak 1425 Harrison Street Property, LLC and.Oak-1428 Jackson, LLC to respond to theFirst Amended Complai xtended to October 4,2021. IT IS SO ORDERED. | DATED: SEP 2 3 2001 JUDGE OF epee COURT 4 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND DEFENDANTS’ TIME TO RESPOND TO THE FIRSTAMENDED COMPLAINT