Hiramanek et al v. Clark et al

Filing 57

ORDER Re Plaintiffs' Motion for Clarification. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 11/13/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Email). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/13/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

ADIL HIRAMANEK, et al.,

9

Plaintiffs,
v.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C-13-0228 EMC

L. MICHAEL CLARK, et al.,

12

ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
FOR CLARIFICATION

Defendants.
___________________________________/

13
14
15
16
17

The Court has received an e-mail (see attached) from Plaintiff Adil Hiramanek which it
construes as a motion for clarification.
Previously, the Court ordered the U.S. Marshal to serve the amended complaint filed by Mr.

18

Hiramanek and his mother, Roda Hiramanek, on the Superior Court and Judge Clark. The Court

19

also instructed Plaintiffs not to file any motion, including a motion for leave to file a second

20

amended complaint, until after the Superior Court and Judge Clark made an appearance in the case

21

and the case management conference was held on November 21, 2013. See Docket No. 39 (Order at

22

12). The case management conference has now been rescheduled for December 12, 2013. See

23

Docket No. 52 (clerk’s notice). Mr. Hiramanek now seeks clarification as to whether he is barred

24

from filing a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint now that the Superior Court and

25

Judge Clark have filed a motion to dismiss.

26

The Court hereby clarifies that both Mr. Hiramanek and Ms. Hiramanek are barred from

27

filing a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint until after the case management

28

conference is held on December 12, 2013. To the extent Mr. Hiramanek suggests he is allowed to

1

amend his complaint because the Superior Court and Judge Clark have filed a motion to dismiss, the

2

Court does not agree. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 allows for a single amendment as a matter

3

of course. Plaintiffs have effectively been given that amendment when the Court dismissed the

4

original complaint filed by Plaintiffs and allowed them to file an amended complaint.

5

To the extent Mr. Hiramanek contends that the Court’s order barring him and his mother

6

from filing a motion for leave to amend prejudices him or his mother,1 he has not made out a

7

sufficient showing of prejudice. Mr. Hiramanek suggests that, if Plaintiffs cannot amend, then their

8

new claim or claims will be barred by the statute of limitations, but he points to no specific claims

9

that Plaintiffs wish to add and that may be time barred unless the Court lifts the bar against them.
Accordingly, the Court reaffirms its prior ruling. The Court also notes that, at the hearing on

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

the Superior Court and Judge Clark’s motion to dismiss (which is also set for December 12, 2013),

12

Plaintiffs are free to make any argument as why they should be given leave to amend, should the

13

Court be inclined to grant the motion to dismiss.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

Dated: November 13, 2013

18

_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Technically, Mr. Hiramanek does not have standing to make any argument on behalf of Ms.
Hiramanek, his mother. Furthermore, Mr. Hiramanek is not an attorney and therefore cannot make
arguments on her behalf in a representative capacity.

2