Chen v. Deutsche Bank Natioal Trust Company et al

Filing 62

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying in part 60 Motion for Extension of Time to File. Plaintiff has to Monday, 7/14/2014 to file. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/8/2014)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5

NAN HUI CHEN,

6

Plaintiff,

7
8
9

Case No.: 13-CV-3352 YGR
ORDER DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

v.
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
COMPANY, et. al.,
Defendant.

10

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to file her Motion to Amend
12

and First Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 60) and Defendants’ Opposition thereto (Dkt. No. 61).
13

Although not titled as such, the instant Motion represents Plaintiff’s second request for an
14

extension of time to file these documents. In its Order Granting in Part Defendants’ Motion to
15

Dismiss with leave to amend, the Court provided Plaintiff approximately two weeks in which to file
16

her Motion and Amended Complaint.1 (Dkt. No. 55 at 19.) On June 23, 2014, one day before that

17

deadline was to expire, Plaintiff filed a stipulation for a one-week extension. (Dkt. No. 58.) The
18

Court granted the stipulation and provided Plaintiff until July 1, 2014 to file her Motion to Amend and
19

Amended Complaint. On July 1, 2014 at 11:25 p.m., Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Extension
20

of Time, requesting an additional 21-day continuance of the Court’s previously reset deadline. (Dkt.
21

No. 60.)
22

Plaintiff’s counsel’s eleventh hour request for an extension of time does not comport with the
23

standards of professional conduct for attorneys practicing in this district. N.D. Cal. L. Civ. R. 11-4.
24
25
26
1

27
28

Despite Plaintiff’s suggestion that the requirement that she provide her Proposed First Amended
Complaint in conjunction with her Motion to Amend places an additional burden on her counsel, the
Local Rules of the Northern District of California make clear that in the ordinary course, a proposed
amended complaint must accompany any motion for leave to amend. N.D. Cal. L. Civ. R. 10-1.

1

Nor does this represent the first time the Court has extended deadlines for Plaintiff. 2 Plaintiff’s

2

failure to comply with deadlines has prevented this litigation from moving forward and unnecessarily

3

delayed its resolution. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s current request for a 21-day extension is DENIED in

4

part. Plaintiff shall have until Monday, July 14, 2014 to file her Motion to Amend and Proposed

5

Amended Complaint as set forth in the Court’s June 9, 2014 Order.3

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8
9

Dated: July 8, 2014
_________________________________________

10

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

Previously, the Court sua sponte provided a three-week extension for Plaintiff to file an opposition
to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and continued the hearing on the same after it noticed that Plaintiff
had failed to timely oppose that motion. (Dkt. No. 35.)
3
This date represents 35 days since Plaintiff was first put on notice as to the contents for any Motion
to Amend. (Dkt. No. 55.)
2