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)

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