United States of America et al v. Bell Transit Corporation et al

Filing 112

ORDER by Judge Hamilton denying 110 administrative motion for extension of time to file complaint and dismissing unserved defendants. (pjhlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/5/2021)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel.,
STEVEN FALLON, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Relators,

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Case No. 16-cv-06994-PJH

v.
BELL TRANSIT CORP., et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
TO FILE COMPLAINT AND
DISMISSING UNSERVED
DEFENDANTS
Re: Dkt. 110

14
15

On March 15, 2021, the court entered an order dismissing plaintiff-relator Fallon’s

16

second amended complaint, with partial leave to amend. See Dkt. 109. The court gave

17

Fallon 21 days to file an amended complaint in accordance with the court’s order.

18

In the March 15 order, the court also noted that two defendants (MCET Affordable

19

Transportation and Functional Floors) appeared not to have been served. Accordingly,

20

the court entered an order to show cause as to why MCET and Functional Floors should

21

not be dismissed for failure to serve under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Dkt.

22

110 at 19. The court gave Fallon seven days, or until March 22, 2021, to file a written

23

response to the OSC or a dismissal of those two defendants.

24
25
26

Fallon did not respond, in any way, to the order to show cause. Thus, MCET and
Functional Floors are DISMISSED from this action for failure to serve.
On March 29, 2021, Fallon filed an administrative motion for an extension of time

27

to file the third amended complaint. See Dkt. 110. Fallon argues that he “has engaged in

28

multiple conversations and contacts with counsel for both defendants” regarding

1

settlement, and has “sought information which he believes is necessary to frame a

2

reasonable, good faith settlement demand on Bell Transit.” Id. at 2. However, Fallon

3

argues that “Bell Transit offered only a single redacted document,” and thus, Fallon is

4

now seeking the same information via a Public Records Act request from a “large public

5

agency.” Id. Fallon states that he requests “an additional 15 days” to file the third

6

amended complaint; but his proposed order actually seeks an extension of 24 days (or 18

7

business days), from April 5 to April 29. See id. at 2, 3.
Simply put, Fallon’s motion is too vague to provide support for his argument that

9

an extension is warranted. Fallon does not provide any specific facts about his claimed

10

Public Records Act request – he does not state what information he is seeking, or from

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

which agency he is seeking it, and he provides no details about when the request was

12

filed or when a response is anticipated. For those reasons, Fallon’s administrative

13

motion (Dkt. 110) is DENIED. Fallon must file an amended complaint, in accordance with

14

the court’s previous order, by tomorrow, April 6, 2021. However, Fallon is not precluded

15

from seeking further leave to amend the complaint under Rule 15(a)(2) if his Public

16

Records Act request does ultimately yield new information that supports his allegations

17

against Bell Transit.

18
19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 5, 2021
/s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2