Saniefar v. Moore et al

Filing 38

Defendants Ex Parte request to extend responsive pleading deadline by seven days (L.R. 144(c)); Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 1/17/018. Defendants ex parte request is GRANTED, and the deadline for all Defendants to file their responsive pleading is extended to January 26, 2018. No further extensions of time shall be granted absent a showing of good cause. (Rosales, O)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Tanya E. Moore, SBN 206683
332 North Second Street
San Jose, California 95112
Telephone [phone]
Facsimile [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorney for Defendants,
Mission Law Firm, Moore Law Firm,
West Coast CASp & ADA Services,
Kenneth Randolph Moore, Geoshua Levinson,
Rick D. Moore, Ronald D. Moore, Ronny Loreto,
Elmer LeRoy Falk, and Marejka Sacks
Tanya E. Moore, SBN 206683
332 North Second Street
San Jose, California 95112
Telephone [phone]
Facsimile [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Defendant in pro se
Zachary M. Best, SBN 166035
332 North Second Street
San Jose, California 95112
Telephone [phone]
Facsimile [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Defendant in pro se

18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

FATEMEH SANIEFAR,
Plaintiff,
vs.
RONALD D. MOORE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:17-cv-00823-LJO-BAM
DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE REQUEST TO
EXTEND RESPONSIVE PLEADING
DEADLINE BY SEVEN DAYS (L.R.
144(c)); ORDER
(Declaration of Tanya E. Moore filed
concurrently herewith)
Current Deadline:
January 19, 2018
Requested Deadline: January 26, 2018

DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST TO EXTEND RESPONSIVE PLEADING DEADLINE; ORDER

Page 1

1

Defendants make this ex parte request pursuant to Local Rule 144(c) to extend the

2

deadline to respond to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint from January 19, 2018 to January

3

26, 2018 for the reasons set forth below. Defendants have received no response from Plaintiff’s

4

counsel regarding their requested extension, and therefore make this request ex parte directly to

5

the Court. (Declaration of Tanya E. Moore, filed herewith (“Moore Decl.”), ¶¶ 3-4.)

6

On December 1, 2018, this Court granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss Plaintiff’s

7

RICO action, but granted Plaintiff leave to amend within 20 days of the Court’s Order. (ECF

8

No. 29.) On December 21, 2017, the Court further granted the Parties’ stipulated request to

9

extend the deadline for Plaintiff to file her First Amended Complaint to January 3, 2018, and

10

the deadline for Defendants to file their responsive pleading to January 19, 2018. (ECF No. 31.)

11

Plaintiff timely filed her amended complaint. (ECF No. 33.)

12

On Friday, January 12, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in

13

the matter of Moore v. Millennium Acquisitions, LLC, et al., Ninth Circuit Case Number

14

16:15531 (“Millennium”), which was an appeal by the Millennium defendants from a judgment

15

in favor of plaintiff, Ronald Moore, in the Eastern District of California case number 1:14-cv-

16

01402-DAD-SAB. A copy of that decision is attached as Exhibit A to the Moore Declaration.

17

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Ronald

18

Moore on the issue of Ronald Moore’s disability, finding that no factual dispute as to Ronald

19

Moore’s disability was created by the video surveillance the Millennium defendants relied upon

20

to discredit Ronald Moore’s disability:
The evidence on which Millennium relies is not to the contrary. Millennium
points to surveillance footage showing Moore walking short distances and a
declaration from Dr. Miller, a physician who once treated Moore, indicating that
Moore’s wheelchair is not “medically necessary.” But Moore does not dispute
that he is capable of walking unassisted. Rather, he maintains that he uses a
wheelchair because walking unaided is painful and difficult. Evidence that
Moore physically can walk but chooses to use a wheelchair as a mobility aid
does not raise a material factual dispute as to whether Moore is disabled under
the ADA. See Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624, 641 (1998).

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

(Moore Decl., Exhibit A at p. 3.)

28

DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST TO EXTEND RESPONSIVE PLEADING DEADLINE; ORDER

Page 2

1

Upon receiving this decision, Defendants, through attorney Tanya Moore, immediately

2

contacted Plaintiff’s counsel that same date (January 12, 2018) and requested, amongst other

3

things relevant to the Ninth Circuit’s decision, that Plaintiff agree to extend their responsive

4

pleading deadline as Defendants need to research and evaluate the impact of the Ninth Circuit’s

5

decision on this matter. (Moore Decl., ¶ 3.) Defendants received no response to this request,

6

and, through attorney Tanya Moore, again contacted Plaintiff’s counsel on Monday, January 15,

7

2018 and advised that if no response was received by close of business that day, Defendants

8

would make a request for the extension directly to the Court on January 16, 2018. No response

9

was received. (Moore Decl., ¶ 4.)

10

Good cause exists to grant this request because Defendants believe that Plaintiff may be

11

foreclosed from reasserting that Ronald Moore is disabled on the grounds of collateral estoppel

12

because Defendants believe that the evidence will demonstrate that the Millennium defendants

13

stand in privity with Plaintiff here, Fatemeh Saniefar. However, Defendants need time to

14

research and investigate this belief before briefing the matter to the Court in any argument that

15

this action should be dismissed with prejudice. No Scheduling Order has issued in this matter,

16

and the Scheduling Conference is not until April 9, 2018.

17
18
19

Defendants therefore respectfully request that they be given an additional week to
respond to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.
Dated: January 16, 2018

20
21
22
23
24
25

Dated: January 16, 2018

/s/ Tanya E. Moore
Tanya E. Moore
Defendant in pro se

Dated: January 16, 2018

/s/ Zachary M. Best
Zachary M. Best
Defendant in pro se

26
27

/s/ Tanya E. Moore
Tanya E. Moore
Attorney for Defendants
Mission Law Firm, Moore Law Firm, West
Coast CASp & ADA Services, Kenneth
Randolph Moore, Geoshua Levinson, Rick
D. Moore, Ronald D. Moore, Ronny
Loreto, Elmer LeRoy Falk, and Marejka
Sacks

28

DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST TO EXTEND RESPONSIVE PLEADING DEADLINE; ORDER

Page 3

1

ORDER

2

On January 16, 2018, Defendants submitted the instant ex parte request for an extension

3

of time to file their responsive pleading to the first amended complaint. Defendants explain that

4

additional time is needed to research the impact of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision

5

in the matter of Moore v. Millennium Acquisitions, LLC, et al., Case No. 16-15531, which was

6

issued on January 12, 2018. (Doc. No. 36.)

7

On January 17, 2018, Plaintiff opposed the ex parte request, arguing that Defendants

8

have not presented any basis for the extension of time because, amongst other things, the same

9

information contained in the Ninth Circuit’s decision was previously available to Defendants,

10

although at the trial court level, and no new arguments have been raised by the decision for

11

Defendants’ consideration. (Doc. No. 37.)

12

Having considered the parties’ arguments, the Court finds good cause for an extension of

13

time to allow Defendants an opportunity to assess the impact, if any, that the Ninth Circuit’s

14

recent decision may have on this action. Plaintiff has not identified any prejudice resulting

15

from the brief seven-day extension of time requested by Defendants, and the Court finds none.

16

Accordingly, Defendants’ ex parte request is GRANTED, and the deadline for all Defendants to

17

file their responsive pleading is extended to January 26, 2018. No further extensions of time

18

shall be granted absent a showing of good cause.

19
20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

January 17, 2018

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28

DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST TO EXTEND RESPONSIVE PLEADING DEADLINE; ORDER

Page 4