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