Brown et al v. Alexander et al

Filing 131

ORDER by Judge Richard Seeborg Granting 128 Plaintiffs' Motion to Extend Time to Respond and Denying the Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/18/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

JENNIFER BROWN, et al.,

Case No. 13-cv-01451-RS

Plaintiffs,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

v.
12
13

JON ALEXANDER, et al.,
Defendants.

14

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS'
MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO
RESPOND AND DENYING THE
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
THE COMPLAINT

15
16

On January 13, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ claim for loss of

17

familial association to be heard on March 3, 2016. The deadline to respond to the motion to

18

dismiss was January 27, 2016, but plaintiffs did not file an opposition by that deadline. On

19

February 16, 2016, plaintiffs filed an “Ex Parte Application” for leave to file a late opposition

20

brief and for leave to amend the complaint.

21

Defendants’ attorney has filed a declaration in response to plaintiffs’ request to submit the

22

untimely brief and explained that plaintiffs’ attorney, Patricia Barry, requested a stipulation to

23

continue the hearing because she could not travel due to various health problems. Defendants

24

suggested that Barry seek leave to appear by telephone, but she has not done so.

25

In light of the foregoing, plaintiffs’ ex parte application will be construed as a motion to

26

change time pursuant to Local Rule 6-3 and a motion for leave to file an amended complaint

27

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. Their motion for leave to file an untimely brief is

28

granted. Defendants must file their reply brief by February 26, 2016. The hearing on the motion

1

will be continued until March 17, 2016. If, after defendants file their reply, it becomes apparent

2

that the motion should be submitted without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 7-1(b), the

3

parties will be notified.

4

Plaintiffs have not, however, complied with the requirements of Rule 15 or established that

5

they are entitled to leave to amend the complaint. Accordingly, the motion for leave to amend is

6

denied without prejudice. If plaintiffs believe they can, in good faith, add additional claims to

7

their complaint, then they must seek leave to do so in accordance with Rule 15.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Dated: February 18, 2016
______________________________________
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
<< SHORT ORDER TITLE >>
CASE NO. 13-cv-01451-RS

28
2