Alvina Fischer v. Ditech Financial LLC et al

Filing 23

ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's 22 Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response to Defendants' 18 Motion to Dismiss, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/20/2017. (Plaintiff's deadline to file her written opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss is extended to 5/2/2017. Defendants shall file their reply, if any, by 5/9/2017. No further extensions of time will be granted for this purpose.) (Thorp, J)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 ALVINA FISCHER, formerly known as ALVINA BANNISTER, Plaintiff, 13 14 15 16 17 18 v. DITECH FINANCIAL LLC, DITECH MORTGAGE CORPORATION, GREEN TREE SERVICING LLC, EVERBANK, and EVERHOME MORTGAGE COMPANY, No. 1:16-cv-01558-DAD-EPG ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. No. 22) Defendants. 19 20 On April 4, 2017, the court held a hearing on defendants’ pending motion to dismiss 21 plaintiff Alvina Fischer’s amended complaint. Plaintiff had failed to file any written opposition 22 to the motion. At the hearing and at her request, the court granted plaintiff two week within 23 which to file a written opposition to the motion to dismiss. (See Doc. No. 21.) On April 17, 24 2017, plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file her opposition. (Doc. No. 22.) 25 Specifically, plaintiff requests an extended deadline of June 2, 2017, in which to do so and 26 explains that an opposition would “require extensive investigation, and consultation with various 27 public officials of the State of California.” (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff also vaguely references the closure 28 of the federal law library due to budget and construction delays. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff fails to 1 1 demonstrate how any of these explanations, even if true, are relevant to her inability to timely file 2 an opposition brief regarding the sufficiency of her amended complaint. Moreover, plaintiff 3 provides no justification for why an additional six-week extension is necessary. 4 Nevertheless, the court recognizes the challenges facing pro se litigants, and in the 5 interests of justice, finds good cause to grant plaintiff a brief additional extension of time. 6 Accordingly, plaintiff’s deadline to file her written opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss is 7 extended to May 2, 2017. Defendants shall file their reply, if any, by May 9, 2017. No further 8 extensions of time will be granted for this purpose. Plaintiff is advised that in her opposition, she 9 should address the arguments raised in defendants’ motion to dismiss. To the extent plaintiff 10 believes she can state cognizable claims by curing pleading deficiencies in her amended 11 complaint, plaintiff is encouraged in her opposition to (1) request further leave to amend her 12 complaint, and (2) explain to the court what new or additional factual allegations she plans to add 13 in a second amended complaint. Doing so should not necessitate any additional legal research on 14 plaintiff’s part. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: April 20, 2017 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?