Hanford Executive Management Employee Association et al v. City of Hanford et al

Filing 45

ORDER DENYING plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application for an Extension of Time to File a First Amended Complaint, document 42 ; order signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 3/12/2012. (Rooney, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

HANFORD EXECUTIVE
MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEE
ASSOCIATION, CATHY CAIN, LOUIS
CAMARA, GEORGE THOMAS DIBBLE,
TIMOTHY IERONIMO, MARY ROSE
LINDSAY, CARLOS MESTAS,
SCOTT YEAGER,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
CITY OF HANFORD, HILARY STRAUS, )
DAN CHIN, SUE SORENSEN, JIM
)
IRWIN, LOU MARTINEZ,
)
JOLEEN JAMESON,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

1:11-cv-00828-AWI-DLB
ORDER DENYING EX PARTE
APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION
OF TIME TO FILE FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT
(Doc. 43)

21
22

Plaintiffs Hanford Executive Management Employee Association et al. have filed an ex parte

23

application for extension of time to file a first amended complaint. Having reviewed the pleadings

24

of record and all competent and admissible evidence submitted, including the declaration of Jason

25

H. Jasmine, the Court finds Plaintiffs have failed to establish good cause for an extension under

26

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b). Plaintiffs first contend they are “presently evaluating their

27

appellate options,” presumably in reference to the Court’s November 17, 2011 and/or February 23,

28

2012 orders dismissing the complaint and denying reconsideration of the dismissal, respectively, and

1

that “[f]iling an amended complaint . . . may potentially have an impact on appeal[.]” Plaintiffs have

2

provided no authority – and the Court’s research reveals no authority – to suggest such reasons could

3

conceivably constitute good cause. Plaintiffs further contend they are “also assessing which portions

4

of the complaint to amend.” The Court notes Plaintiffs have had nearly four months – since entry

5

of the Court’s November 17, 2011 order dismissing their complaint – to file an amended complaint,

6

which is significantly more than the thirty days the Court typically affords litigants. Under these

7

circumstances, additional time to amend is unwarranted. See State of California ex rel. Mueller v.

8

Walgreen Corp., 175 F.R.D. 638, 639-40 (N.D.Cal. 1997). Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ ex parte

9

application for extension of time to file a first amended complaint is DENIED.

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
12

Dated:
0m8i78

March 12, 2012
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2