Estate of Ariel Torres v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al

Filing 20

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT TRUONG'S REQUEST FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF TO VACATE RESPONSIVE PLEADING FILING DEADLINE and ORDER REQUIRING STATUS REPORT RE REPRESENTATION OF DEFENDANT MONICA NARVAIZ, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 08 /30/2024. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Bianca Truong's motion for administrative relief to vacate the deadline to file a responsive pleading (ECF No. 18 at 2) is DENIED without prejudice. Counsel Corinna Arbiter shall file a status report regarding her representation of Defendant Narvaiz, or, alternatively, a proper motion requesting relief within seven (7) days after entry of this order. (Nguyen, J)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

ESTATE OF ARIEL TORRES,

6

Plaintiff,

7
8
9

v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION, et al.

10

Defendants.

1:24-cv-00731-KES-SAB
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT
TRUONG’S REQUEST FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF TO VACATE
RESPONSIVE PLEADING FILING
DEADLINE
ORDER REQUIRING STATUS REPORT RE
REPRESENTATION OF DEFENDANT
MONICA NARVAIZ
(ECF No. 18)

11
12
13

On June 21, 2024, Plaintiff filed a complaint in this action. (ECF No. 1.) On August 15,

14

2024, Defendant Monica Narvaiz filed an answer to the complaint. (ECF No. 13.) On August

15

15, 2024, Defendants California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Jeffrey

16

Macomber, Kevin Hixon, Diane Toche, Connie Gipson, Frederick Beryerlein, Ulises Ojeda, and

17

Elizabeth Beltran filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 14.) Defendant Bianca Truong has not

18

filed a responsive pleading.

19

On August 15, 2024, Bianca Truong requested an extension of time until August 30, 2024

20

to respond to Plaintiff’s complaint. (ECF No. 14.) No party filed an opposition. See L.R.

21

233(b).

22

Defendant Truong file a responsive pleading on or before August 30, 2024. (ECF No. 17.)

Accordingly, on August 15, 2024, the Court granted the motion and ordered that

Currently before the Court is a motion for administrative relief filed by Defendant Truong.

23
24

(ECF No. 18.) The Court finds an opposition would not aid the Court in deciding the motion.1

25

1

26
27
28

Plaintiffs also filed a motion for administrative relief on August 28, 2024, requesting an extension of time to file an
amended complaint. (ECF No. 19.) The Court notes it contains a stipulation between the “Attorney for Defendants
CDCR, et al.” and Plaintiffs. (Id. at 4.) Because it is unclear if Defendant Narvaiz has stipulated to the motion, the
Court cannot construe the filing as a stipulation for an extension of time pursuant to Local Rule 144(a). Thus, the last
day to file an opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for administrative relief (ECF No. 19) is September 3, 2024. The Court
strongly encourages the parties to file stipulations signed by all parties who have appeared and are affected when
requesting extensions of time. L.R. 144(a).

1

1

As an initial matter, on July 10, 2024, counsel Corinna Sue Arbiter filed a declaration

2

stating she represents Defendant Narvaiz and requested an extension of time to file a response on

3

behalf of Defendant Narvaiz. (ECF No. 10.) On July 16, 2024, the Court granted the request.

4

(ECF No. 11.) Defendant Narvaiz filed an answer on August 15, 2024, through separate counsel.

5

(ECF No. 13.) Neither Ms. Arbiter nor the Office of the Attorney General is listed as counsel in

6

Defendant Narvaiz’s answer. (See ECF No. 13 generally.) No substitution of counsel nor motion

7

to withdraw has been filed. Because it is unclear whether Ms. Arbiter still represents Defendant

8

Narvaiz, the Court shall require Ms. Arbiter to file a status report as to her representation of

9

Defendant Narvaiz, or, alternatively, file a proper motion requesting relief.

10

Turning to the instant motion, on August 28, 2024, Defendant Truong filed a motion to

11

vacate the August 30, 2024, deadline to respond to Plaintiff’s complaint.

12

Defendant Truong provides no alternative deadline to respond. This Court does not recognize

13

open extensions of time to file responsive pleadings and shall therefore deny the motion.

14

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

15

1.

16

(ECF No. 18.)

Defendant Bianca Truong’s motion for administrative relief to vacate the deadline
to file a responsive pleading (ECF No. 18 at 2) is DENIED without prejudice; and

17

2.

Counsel Corinna Arbiter shall file a status report regarding her representation of

18

Defendant Narvaiz, or, alternatively, a proper motion requesting relief within

19

seven (7) days after entry of this order.

20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 30, 2024
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2