United States v. JG Snider Enterprises

1 WRIGHT, FINLAY & ZAK, LLP Gwen H. Ribar, Esq., SBN 188024 Todd E. Chvat, Esq., SBN 238282 4665 MacArthur Court, Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Tel: (949) 477-5050; Fax: (949) 477-9200 [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant, U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as Trustee, for ABS Loan Trust VI UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 1:21- CV-00854-DAD-SKO Plaintiff, JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR 14 v. DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO 15 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT JG SNIDER ENTERPRISES, INC d/b/a TANO BONSAI AND (Doc. 15) LANDSCAPING; JOHN G. SNIDER; COLLEEN FAUGH-SNIDER; Current response date: June 22, 2021 CHARLES SUMNER WINSTON III, New response date: August 20, 2021 SUCCESSOR CO-TRUSTEE OF THE NADINE SNIDER WINSTON Complaint filed: May 28, 2021 REVOABLE TRUST DATED APRIL 26, 1994; MARSHA LEA WINSTON- [Pursuant to Local Rule 144] FAYER SUCCESSOR CO-TRUSTEE OF THE NADINE SNIDER WINSTON REVOCABLE TRUST DATED APRIL 26, 1994; US BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR ABS LOAN TRUST VI; BANK OF AMERICA, N.A; ANN LEALE; STUART SNIDER; and STANISLAUS COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; 3 Defendants.

5 TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA: 7 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED between Defendant, U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as Trustee, for ABS Loan Trust VI (“Defendant”) by and through their undersigned counsel, and Plaintiff, United States of America (“Plaintiff”) by and through their undersigned counsel (collectively as the “Stipulating Parties”), as follows: 12 1. WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed its Complaint (the “Complaint”) on May 28, 2021; 14 2. WHEREAS, Defendant’s response to the Complaint is currently due on June 22, 2021; 16 3. WHEREAS, Plaintiff’s Complaint seeks reduce certain tax assessments to judgment and foreclose upon three (3) properties owned by defendants John G. Snider and Colleen Faugh-Snider – the Elizabeth Way Property, Sandling Property, and Fulkerth Property (Complaint, ¶¶20-30); 20 4. WHEREAS, Plaintiff’s Complaint seeks lien priority over all interests in the properties acquired after the attachment of the federal tax liens (Complaint, ¶¶70, 76, and 82); 23 5. WHEREAS, Defendant is the lienholder and beneficiary of a second mortgage loan secured by the Elizabeth Way Property; 25 6. WHEREAS, the Stipulating Parties desire to conserve litigation costs and have discussed resolving the matter between them via a stipulated judgment with respect to lien priority; 1 7. WHEREAS, because there are multiple lienholders named in the action in connection with the properties, Plaintiff desires to enter into a global stipulation with all lienholders as opposed to piecemeal stipulations; 4 8. WHEREAS, in order to give Plaintiff time to communicate with other lienholders and not force Defendant to incur unnecessary fees in prosecuting its defense, the Stipulating Parties agree that Defendant’s response deadline shall be extended for sixty (60) days which should afford Plaintiff enough time to meet and confer with the other lienholders regarding a global stipulation; 9 9. WHEREAS, no prior extensions to respond to the Complaint have been requested or given; 11 10. WHEREAS, in light of the above, the Stipulating Parties agree to extend Defendant’s time to respond to the Complaint to August 20, 2021, which is sixty (60) days from the current response date of June 22, 2021; 14 11. WHEREAS, this Stipulation waives no rights of the Stipulating Parties.

16 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED BY AND BETWEEN THE UNDERSIGNED COUNSEL: 18 1. That the deadline for Defendant to file and serve a response to Plaintiff’s Complaint shall be August 20, 2021; 20 2. It is further stipulated that this Stipulation may be countersigned or signed in parts, and that all facsimile or electronically transmitted signatures shall have the same effect as if an original.

23 IT IS SO STIPULATED.

25 Dated: June 23, 2021 By: /s/ Issac M. Hoenig, Esq.

David A. Hubbert, Esq.

Issac M. Hoenig, Esq.

27 Attorneys for Plaintiff, 28 United States of America 1 WRIGHT, FINLAY & ZAK, LLP Dated: June 23, 2021 By: /s/ Todd E. Chvat T. Robert Finlay, Esq.

4 Todd E. Chvat, Esq.

5 Attorneys for Defendant, U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as Trustee, for ABS Loan Trust VI 1 ORDER 2 On May 28, 2021, Plaintiff United States of America (“Plaintiff”) filed its Complaint (Doc. 1), which was served on Defendant US Bank Trust National Association, as Trustee for ABS Loan Trust VI (“Defendant”), on June 1, 2021 (see Doc. 6). Defendant’s deadline to respond to the Complaint was June 22, 2021.

6 Plaintiff and Defendant filed a “Joint Stipulation to Extend Time for Defendant to Respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint” (Doc. 15) on June 23, 2021—one day after Defendant’s responsive pleading deadline. Although the Court may extend time to file a responsive pleading after the deadline has expired because of “excusable neglect,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B), no such excusable neglect has been articulated—much less shown—here.

12 Notwithstanding this deficiency, given the absence of bad faith or prejudice to Plaintiff (as evidenced by the parties’ agreement to the extension of time), and in view of the liberal construction of Fed. R. Civ. 6(b)(1) to effectuate the general purpose of seeing that cases are tried on the merits, see Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258–59 (9th Cir. 2010), the Court GRANTS the parties’ stipulated request. The parties are cautioned that future post hoc request for extensions of time will be viewed with disfavor.

19 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s deadline to respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint is extended to August 20, 2021.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23 Dated: June 24, 2021 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-1-