Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports US, et al

Filing 174

ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 10/13/2011 ORDERING 173 The application for leave to file the Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED; and the dates previously scheduled in the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference Order # 166 are still in effect. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BYRON CHAPMAN,
NO. CIV. S-04-1339 LKK/DAD

12
13

Plaintiff,
v.
O R D E R

14
15

PIER 1 IMPORTS (U.S.), INC.,
Defendant.
/

16
17

On August 22, 2011, this court granted plaintiff leave to file

18

an amended complaint by September 12, 2011, twenty-one days from

19

the date of the order (Dkt. No. 171).

20

plaintiff filed an “Ex Parte” application for leave to file the

21

amended complaint late.

On September 19, 2011,

22

The application does not conform to the Local Rules for this

23

District, specifically E.D. Cal. R. (“Local R.”) 6-144(b) and (c),

24

in that it does not advise the court of prior extensions, if any;

25

and does not indicate by counsel’s affidavit if a stipulation was

26

sought from the defendant, and if so, why it was not obtained.
1

1

Plaintiff

also

failed

to

file

the

application

prior

to

the

2

expiration of the time allowed to amend the complaint, in violation

3

of Local R. 6-144(d).

4

Plaintiff’s counsel explains that the death of his father-in-

5

law disrupted his life to such an extent that he was unable to

6

comply with the filing deadline.

7

personally for this, rather than have any sanction against his

8

client.

He asks that he be sanctioned

9

The application was served electronically upon counsel for

10

defendant, who has not opposed or otherwise responded to the

11

application, nor disputed counsel’s explanations.

The court

12

accepts

that

13

representations do not explain all of counsel’s failures to comply

14

with the Local Rules.

15

Local Rules, at the risk of sanctions.

counsel’s

16

1.

notwithstanding

the

Counsel is cautioned to comply with the

Accordingly,

17

representations,

Complaint is GRANTED; and

18
19

The application for leave to file the Second Amended

2.

The dates previously scheduled in the Status (Pretrial

20

Scheduling) Conference Order of July 18, 2011 (Dkt.

21

No. 166) are still in effect.

22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

DATED:

October 13, 2011.

24
25
26
2