Kevin Johnson v. Walmart, Inc.

Filing 14

ORDER GRANTING IN PART #12 Application for Extension of Time to Respond to First Amended Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 11/17/2020. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

KEVIN JOHNSON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated;
Plaintiff,

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S FIRST APPLICATION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO THE
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND FOR
LEAVE TO AMEND BRIEFING SCHEDULE

Defendant.

13
14

Case No.: 1:20-cv-01360-DAD-JLT

(Doc. 12)

v.
WALMART INC.,

15
16

The defendant moves the Court for a 19-day extension of time to respond to the First Amended

17
18

Complaint. (Doc. 12) The defendant cites the need to review the complaint and to meet and confer with

19

opposing counsel related to an anticipated motion to dismiss, in hopes of resolving the issues without

20

need for a formal motion. Id. at 2.
The plaintiff opposes the request unless the scheduling conference goes forward as currently set

21
22

on December 18, 2020. (Doc. 13) The plaintiff offers no explanation for this position. He offers no

23

argument that requiring the Court to expend extremely limited judicial resources in managing the case

24

while the motion to dismiss is pending—and a decision on a motion like this can take months to issue 1-

25

-all the while expending other judicial resources to determine whether the case will proceed beyond the

26
27

1

Presumably counsel is aware that this Court is in a state of judicial crisis. The formal declaration of this crisis is months
old, though the actual crisis has existed for years.

28
1

1

pleading stage. He fails to demonstrate any prejudice to him that the 19-day extension would impose

2

and seems to ignore that it was his decision to amend his complaint that gave rise to the delay now at

3

issue. 2 Thus, the Court ORDERS:

4

1.

The plaintiff’s objection (Doc. 13) to the extension request is OVERRULED;

5

2.

The defendant’s request for the extension of time (Doc. 12) is GRANTED IN PART.

6

The responsive pleading SHALL be filed no later than December 8, 2020. The Court declines to set a

7

briefing on a motion that has not been filed and, in fact, as to which there is no certainty will be filed.

8

If a motion to dismiss is filed, the normal rules related to opposing and replying to the opposition

9

remain in place. 3

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

Dated:

13

November 17, 2020

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

Because the plaintiff refused to stipulate to the extension, the Court was required to address his unsupported objections
despite the significant number of other cases also needing urgent attention. In future, counsel SHALL extend courtesy to
their opponent unless doing so would prejudice the client.
3
Moreover, because the plaintiff is concerned about delay, the proposed briefing scheduling, which inflates the normal time
periods, is inconsistent with this concern.

2