Grenier v. Goren et al

Filing 12

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 6/11/12: Defendant shall have until August 17, 2012 to respond to the amended complaint. No further extensions. (Kaminski, H)

1

4

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER
United States Attorney
LYNN TRINKA ERNCE
Assistant United States Attorney
501 I Street, Suite 10-100
Sacramento, California 95814
Telephone: [phone]

5

Attorneys for Defendant

2
3

6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JERRY L. GRENIER,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.
WENDY SPENCER, Chief Executive Officer
of the Corporation for National and
Community Service,1

16

Case No. 2:12-cv-00258 KJM GGH
EX PARTE APPLICATION
FOR AN ORDER EXTENDING
THE TIME FOR DEFENDANT
TO RESPOND TO AMENDED
COMPLAINT; DECLARATION
OF LYNN TRINKA ERNCE;
ORDER

Defendant.

17
18

Defendant Wendy Spencer respectfully requests that the Court enter an order granting her a

19

60-day extension of time to respond to plaintiff’s complaint. In support of this ex parte application,

20

defendant respectfully represents as follows:
1.

21
22

On January 31, 2012, plaintiff filed his original complaint alleging eleven causes of

action under Title VII. Docket 1.
2.

23

On April 23, 2012, plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging four causes of action

24

under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Title VII, and the Rehabilitation Act. Docket 4. The

25

amended complaint is lengthy – nearly 60 pages long – and includes 283 allegations. Id.

26
27
28
29
30

1

Pursuant to the Notice of Substitution of Defendant filed herein, Wendy Spencer is the proper party
defendant in this case, and she has been substituted in as defendant pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).
Ex Parte Application For Extension Of Time To Respond
To Amended Complaint; Ernce Declaration; Order

1

1
2
3

3.

Plaintiff served the amended complaint on the United States Attorney’s Office on April

27, 2012. Docket 8. Defendant’s response is due on June 15, 2012. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(2)
4.

On May 16, 2012, the undersigned Assistant United States Attorney (“AUSA”)

4

responded to an email from plaintiff in which plaintiff asked the AUSA to acknowledge receipt of the

5

proof of service that plaintiff filed as Docket 8. Declaration of Lynn Trinka Ernce (“Ernce Decl., ¶ 2).

6

5.

In her email to plaintiff, the AUSA acknowledged receipt of the proof of service and also

7

informed plaintiff that she would need additional time beyond June 15, 2012 to review, analyze, and

8

respond to his lengthy amended complaint. Id., ¶ 3. The AUSA asked plaintiff if he would be willing to

9

stipulate to allow defendant additional time to respond to the amended complaint, as permitted by the

10

Local Rules. Id. and Ex. A. Plaintiff responded that he believed defendant’s response was due on

11

May 25, 2012, and he stated that he would not agree to stipulate to the requested extension. Id.

12

6.

On May 17, 2012, the AUSA sent plaintiff another email explaining why the response

13

deadline is June 15, 2012, and that, contrary to plaintiff’s statements in his May 16 email, there is no

14

large team of attorneys at the agency defending this case. Id., ¶ 6. The AUSA explained that she is the

15

only attorney defending this action and that, in light of plaintiff’s decision not to grant the courtesy of an

16

extension, she may decide to seek an extension from the Court directly via ex parte application. Id.

17
18
19

7.

That same day, plaintiff responded that he agreed that the response is due on June 15,

2012, and acknowledging that the AUSA may seek an extension from the Court. Id., ¶ 6. and Ex. A.
8.

The amended complaint is very lengthy, the allegations are disorganized and confusing,

20

and plaintiff’s actual claims being asserted in this action are difficult to discern. While the amended

21

complaint purports to assert claims under ADEA, Title VII and the Rehabilitation Act, there are

22

numerous allegations throughout the pleading which do not appear to relate to claims under any of those

23

federal statutes. Id., ¶ 7.

24

9.

Additionally, some of the claims that plaintiff seems to be asserting in the amended

25

complaint appear to relate to multiple administrative proceedings that occurred before the Equal

26

Employment Opportunity Commission and/or the Merit Systems Protection Board. One of the threshold

27

issues that the AUSA needs to analyze is whether plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies for

28

all of his claims in the amended complaint such that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the

29

Ex Parte Application For Extension Of Time To Respond
To Amended Complaint; Ernce Declaration; Order

30

2

1

claims. However, as of the date of this application, the AUSA has not been able to complete her

2

analysis because she has not yet received the administrative claim files from the agency. Id., ¶ 8. The

3

AUSA expects to receive the administrative claim files from the agency soon. Id. However, once she

4

receives them, she will need some time to review and analyze them before she can prepare defendant’s

5

response.

6

10.

In sum, the AUSA needs additional time to review and analyze the amended complaint

7

and to formulate defendant’s response, whether it be an answer to the amended complaint, or, more

8

likely, a motion for more definite statement, and/or a motion to dismiss.

9

11.

The AUSA defending this action carries a full case load and has multiple deadlines,

10

hearings, conferences, and depositions scheduled in the next 30 days. Id., ¶ 9. Additionally, the AUSA

11

is scheduled to be on leave the last two weeks of July/first week of August. Id. Thus, defendant is

12

requesting a 60-day extension of time for her response to the amended complaint, to August 17, 2012.

13

ARGUMENT

14

The Court Should Extend The Time For Defendants To Respond To The Complaint

15

Under Local Rule 144(c), the Court may, in its discretion, grant an ex parte request for extension

16

of time to respond to a complaint “upon the affidavit of counsel that a stipulation extending time cannot

17

reasonably be obtained, explaining the reasons why such a stipulation cannot be obtained, and the

18

reasons why an extension is necessary.” The requirements for ex parte relief are met in this case.

19

For all of the reasons set forth above, defendant is not in a position to file her response to the

20

complaint by the current June 15, 2012 deadline, and she respectfully requests a 60-day extension of

21

time to respond. A stipulation extending time cannot be reasonably obtained because plaintiff has

22

refused to agree to any extension of time for defendant to respond to the amended complaint.
CONCLUSION

23
24

Defendant respectfully requests that the Court extend the time for her to respond to plaintiff’s

25

amended complaint to August 17, 2012.

26

DATED: June 7, 2012

27
28
29
30

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER
United States Attorney
By: /s/ Lynn Trinka Ernce
LYNN TRINKA ERNCE
Assistant United States Attorney

Ex Parte Application For Extension Of Time To Respond
To Amended Complaint; Ernce Declaration; Order

3

1

DECLARATION OF LYNN TRINKA ERNCE

2

I, Lynn Trinka Ernce, declare as follows:

3

1.

I am an Assistant United States Attorney and have been assigned to handle the defense of

4

this litigation. I make this declaration in support of the ex parte application for an order extending the

5

time for defendant to respond to plaintiff’s complaint. Except for matters stated on information and

6

belief, I have personal knowledge of the facts stated in this declaration and, if called as a witness, I could

7

and would testify competently to these facts.

8
9
10

2.

On May 16, 2012, I responded to an email from plaintiff in which he asked me to

acknowledge receipt of the proof of service he had filed as Docket 8.
3.

In my email to plaintiff, I acknowledged receipt of the proof of service and also informed

11

him that I would need additional time beyond June 15, 2012 to review, analyze, and respond to his

12

lengthy amended complaint. I asked plaintiff if he would be willing to stipulate to allow defendant

13

additional time to respond to the amended complaint, as permitted by the Local Rules. A true and

14

correct copy of my email to plaintiff (and the entire email exchange with plaintiff described in this

15

declaration) is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

16
17
18

4.

In another May 16, 2012 email, plaintiff stated that he believed defendant’s response was

due on May 25, 2012, and that he would not agree to stipulate to the requested extension.
5.

On May 17, 2012, I sent plaintiff another email explaining why the response deadline is

19

June 15, 2012, and that, contrary to plaintiff’s statements in his May 16 email, there is no large team of

20

attorneys at the agency defending this case. I explained that I am the only attorney defending this action

21

and that, in light of plaintiff’s decision not to grant the courtesy of an extension, I may decide to seek an

22

extension from the Court directly via ex parte application.

23
24
25

6.

That same day, plaintiff responded that he agreed that the response is due on June 15,

2012, and he acknowledged that I may seek an extension from the Court.
7.

The amended complaint is very lengthy, the allegations are disorganized and confusing,

26

and plaintiff’s actual claims being asserted in this action are difficult to discern. While the amended

27

complaint purports to assert claims under ADEA, Title VII and the Rehabilitation Act, there are

28

numerous allegations which do not appear to relate to claims under any of those federal statutes.

29

Ex Parte Application For Extension Of Time To Respond
To Amended Complaint; Ernce Declaration; Order

30

4

1

8.

Additionally, some of the claims that plaintiff seems to be asserting in the amended

2

complaint appear to relate to multiple administrative proceedings that occurred before the Equal

3

Employment Opportunity Commission and/or the Merit Systems Protection Board. One of the threshold

4

issues that I must analyze is whether plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies for all of his

5

claims in the amended complaint such that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims.

6

However, as of the date of this application, I have not been able to complete my analysis because I have

7

not yet received the administrative claim files from the agency. I expect to receive them soon. But once

8

I receive them, I will need time to review and analyze them before I can prepare defendant’s response,

9

whether it be an answer to the amended complaint, or, more likely, a motion for more definite statement,

10
11

and/or a motion to dismiss.
9.

I carry a full case load and have multiple deadlines, hearings, conferences, and

12

depositions scheduled in the next 30 days. Additionally, I am scheduled to be on leave the last two

13

weeks of July/first week of August. Thus, defendant is requesting a 60-day extension of time for her

14

response to the amended complaint, to August 17, 2012.

15
16

10.

A stipulation extending time cannot be reasonably obtained because plaintiff has refused

to agree to any extension of time to respond to the complaint. See Ex. A.

17

Executed this 7th day of June, 2012, in Sacramento, California.

18

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

19
/s/ Lynn Trinka Ernce
LYNN TRINKA ERNCE

20

ORDER

21
22

Based on the ex parte application and declaration, and good cause appearing therefore,

23

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the application is granted;

24

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that defendant shall have until August 17, 2012 to

25

respond to the amended complaint. No further extensions.

26

DATED: June 11, 2012

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows
United States Magistrate Judge

Ex Parte Application For Extension Of Time To Respond
To Amended Complaint; Ernce Declaration; Order

5

27
28
29
30