Grant Gilmore v. American Mortgage Network Inc et al

Filing 65

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Christina A. Snyder: The Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Enlarge Time to Amend His RICO Cause of Action 49 . Because Plaintiff has failed to amend his RICO claim, the Court DISMISSES this claim with prejudice. Court Reporter: Not Present. (gk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 12-7935-CAS (Ex)

Title

GRANT GILMORE V. AMERICAN MORTGAGE NETWORK, ET AL.

Present: The Honorable

Date

April 2, 2013

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER

Catherine Jeang
Deputy Clerk

Not present
Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants

Not present

Not present

Proceedings:

(In Chambers:) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ENLARGE
TIME TO AMEND HIS RICO CAUSE OF ACTION (filed
February 25, 2013) [Dkt. No. 49]

The Court finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing date of April 8, 2013, is
vacated, and the matter is hereby taken under submission.
On December 10, 2012, the Court granted various defendants’ motions to dismiss
for failure to state a claim. Dkt. No. 36. The Court gave plaintiff thirty days in which to
file an amended complaint or risk dismissal with prejudice. Plaintiff was provided with a
RICO case statement indicating what plaintiff must plead to state a RICO claim.
However, plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint before the deadline.
On January 9, 2013, plaintiff filed a “Motion for Relief from Order” pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Dkt. No. 37. The Court deemed this filing to be a
motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order granting defendants’ motions to dismiss
without prejudice and denied the same on February 12, 2013. Although the original
deadline had passed, the Court granted plaintiff an additional seven (7) days to file an
amended complaint. In accordance with the Court’s order, plaintiff filed his First
Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on February 19, 2013. Plaintiff’s FAC does not include a
RICO claim.
On February 25, 2013, plaintiff filed the instant motion for an enlargement of time
in which to amend his RICO claim. Dkt. No. 49. Plaintiff seeks thirty to sixty additional
days in which to amend his RICO claim, in order to conduct the necessary legal research
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 12-7935-CAS (Ex)

Date

April 2, 2013

Title

GRANT GILMORE V. AMERICAN MORTGAGE NETWORK, ET AL.

and discovery for adequately pleading the elements of this claim. Defendants have filed
oppositions to plaintiff’s request for additional time.
Because plaintiff has already filed an amended complaint without a RICO claim,
the Court construes plaintiff’s motion to be a motion for leave to file a second amended
complaint, one that includes a RICO claim. After considering the parties’ filings, the
Court denies plaintiff’s motion. The Court already provided plaintiff with thirty days in
which to amend his RICO claim, along with a RICO case statement indicating how
plaintiff should proceed in amending his claim. However, despite filing an amended
complaint, plaintiff failed to include a RICO claim in his FAC. Having already filed an
amended complaint, plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause as to why he should be
afforded yet another opportunity to plead an amended RICO claim. Plaintiff has already
been provided with ample opportunity in which to do so.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s motion for an enlargement of time.
Because plaintiff has failed to amend his RICO claim, the Court DISMISSES this claim
with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
00
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

00

CMJ

Page 2 of 2