Han et al v. Synergy Homecare Franchising, LLC
ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore denying 37 Administrative Motion to delay ruling on pending motion to dismiss. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/20/2016)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JOHN HAN, ET AL.,
Case No. 4:16-cv-03759-KAW
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS'
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
SYNERGY HOMECARE FRANCHISING,
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Re: Dkt. No. 37
On December 1, 2016, the Court held a hearing on Defendant’s motion to dismiss the
complaint and compel arbitration. On December 6, 2016, Plaintiffs filed an administrative motion
to change time and requested that the Court not issue an order on the motion to dismiss before
January 12, 2017 to allow Plaintiffs time to prepare and file a motion for leave to file a first
amended complaint. (Pls.’ Mot., Dkt. No. 37.) On December 14, 2016, Defendant filed an
opposition, which was untimely. (Def.’s Opp’n, Dkt. No. 40.)
Notwithstanding, Plaintiffs have provided no reason why the Court should refrain from
ruling on the pending motion, which was filed on July 12, 2016. Indeed, Plaintiff’s had an
opportunity to file an amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B),
which permits a party to amend its pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days of being
served with a motion under Rule 12(b). Plaintiffs did not do so. The Court further notes that the
merits of the motion to dismiss—specifically the arbitrability issue—are likely unaffected by
potential amendment. If Plaintiffs wish to add other claims, they may seek leave to do so at a later
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 20, 2016
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?