Narrative Opinion Summary
Appellees CitiMortgage, Inc. (as successor by merger to Source One Mortgage Services Corporation) and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. filed an unopposed motion for a 30-day extension to file their Appellees’ Brief, moving the deadline from January 4, 2016, to February 3, 2016. The motion cites several commitments of lead appellate counsel, Susan Kidwell, including multiple briefs due on December 18, 2015, and a family vacation from January 1, 2016. This is the first request for an extension, and all other parties involved in the appeal have indicated they do not oppose this motion. The motion is submitted by Locke Lord LLP, with detailed contact information for the attorneys involved. A certificate of conference confirms that all counsel were consulted and agreed to the extension. A certificate of service ensures that relevant parties were notified of the motion.
Legal Issues Addressed
Certificate of Conference and Servicesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The motion includes a certificate of conference and a certificate of service, demonstrating compliance with procedural requirements for notifying all relevant parties and confirming their agreement.
Reasoning: A certificate of conference confirms that all counsel were consulted and agreed to the extension. A certificate of service ensures that relevant parties were notified of the motion.
Extension of Time for Filing Briefssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court permits an extension of time for filing the Appellees' Brief due to the lead counsel's prior commitments and family vacation plans. This is the first request for an extension, and it is unopposed by any party involved in the appeal.
Reasoning: Appellees CitiMortgage, Inc. (as successor by merger to Source One Mortgage Services Corporation) and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. filed an unopposed motion for a 30-day extension to file their Appellees’ Brief, moving the deadline from January 4, 2016, to February 3, 2016.
Non-opposition to Motionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The absence of opposition to the motion from all parties involved supports the granting of the extension, indicating a consensus among the parties.
Reasoning: This is the first request for an extension, and all other parties involved in the appeal have indicated they do not oppose this motion.