Koenig v. Bank of America, N.A.

Filing 64

ORDER Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Leave File a First Amended Complaint(Doc. 57) - Plaintiff shall file his First Amended Complaint, amending his second and third causes of action, only, on or before April 8, 2015; no further extensions will be granted. ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Object to Magistrate's Orders (Doc. 58) - Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File Objections to the Magistrates Order Denying Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Add New Defendants, Fact ual Allegations and Causes of Action is DENIED. ORDER Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Withdraw His Objections. (Doc. 62) Plaintiffs Motion to Withdraw Plaintiffs Objections to the Magistrates Order Denying Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Add N ew Defendants, Factual Allegations and Causes of Action (Doc. 56) is GRANTED. (Doc. 62). THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE. Failure to comply with this Order will result in a recommendation of dismissal of this case. signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 3/6/2015. (Herman, H)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 Case No. 1:13-cv-0693-AWI-BAM PHILIP KOENIG, 14 15 16 17 18 19 Plaintiff, v. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE FILE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (Doc. 57) BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO OBJECT TO MAGISTRATE’S ORDERS (Doc. 58) 21 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS OBJECTIONS. 22 (Doc. 62). 23 THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE 20 24 25 Plaintiff Philip A. Koenig (“Plaintiff”), is proceeding pro se, in this mortgage-related case 26 brought against Defendant Bank of America, N.A. (“Defendant”). Plaintiff brings three motions 27 for the Court’s consideration stemming from the Court’s prior Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion 28 for Leave to Add New Parties and Claims to his complaint. (Doc. 54). After denying Plaintiff’s 1 1 Motion for Leave, the Court ORDERED Plaintiff to file his First Amended Complaint on or 2 before January 9, 2015. 3 In the instant Motions, Plaintiff requests leave to file objections to this Court’s December 4 10, 2014 Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion to add new claims and parties and permission to file 5 his First Amended Complaint following a ruling on Plaintiff’s objections. (Docs. 56, 57).1 For 6 the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to file objections is DENIED and 7 Plaintiff will have until April 8, 2015 to file an amended complaint which complies with the 8 Court’s previous order on dismissal. (Docs. 24, 54). 9 A party may serve and file objections to a Magistrate Judge’s non-dispositive pretrial 10 order within 14 days after being served with a copy. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Plaintiff was served 11 by mail with the order denying his motion for leave to amend on December 10, 2014, and any 12 objections were due on or before December 28, 2014. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time, 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 signed on January 9, 2015, is late, and Plaintiff has not explained why he was unable to request an extension of time before the deadline to file his objections. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1). Plaintiff’s report that he intended to file his motion for leave with his earlier objections, filed on January 5, 2015 does not establish excusable neglect for the late request. Plaintiff’s strep throat also does not constitute good cause for why Plaintiff could not request an extension of time to file his objections. Plaintiff is familiar with the simple process of requesting a timely extension of time. Indeed, Plaintiff’s instant Motion for leave is a fourth attempt to obtain additional time to respond to a Court order. Plaintiff’s delay in this case has been ongoing and Plaintiff was previously warned that the Court would not grant a further request for an extension of time unless good cause is shown. Plaintiff has not shown good cause to allow the late filed objections, but in an effort to be 23 particularly sensitive to the challenges faced by pro se litigants, the Court will grant a final 24 extension of time for Plaintiff to file his First Amended Complaint. The First Amended 25 /// 26 27 28 1 Presumably in an effort to clarify the docket, on January 26, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Withdraw his initial objections, filed on January 5, 2015 (Doc. 62), to the Magistrate Judge’s Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend his Complaint. 2 1 Complaint must be consistent with the Court’s December 23, 2013 Order granting Plaintiff leave 2 to amend his second and third causes of action, only. (Doc. 24). 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. Plaintiff’s Motion for an Extension of time to file the First Amended Complaint is 5 GRANTED. (Doc. 57). 6 amending his second and third causes of action, only, on or before April 8, 2015; 7 no further extensions will be granted; 8 2. Causes of Action is DENIED; 10 3. and Causes of Action (Doc. 56) is GRANTED. (Doc. 62). 13 4. Failure to comply with this Order will result in a recommendation of dismissal of this case. 15 16 Plaintiff’s Motion to Withdraw Plaintiff’s Objections to the Magistrate’s Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Add New Defendants, Factual Allegations 12 14 Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Objections to the Magistrate’s Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Add New Defendants, Factual Allegations and 9 11 Plaintiff shall file his First Amended Complaint, IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 Dated: /s/ Barbara March 6, 2015 A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?