Quillinan v. Ainsworth et al

Filing 22

ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore granting #16 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer; terminating #17 Administrative Motion (Opposition/Response to #16 Motion for Extension of Time). (kawlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/6/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

KEVIN DANIEL QUILLINAN,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

RUSSELL AINSWORTH, et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 4:17-cv-00077-KAW
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS'
MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO
RESPOND TO THE FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT
Re: Dkt. No. 16

12
On May 11, 2017, Defendants Jon Loevy, Michael Kanovitz, Russell Ainsworth, Ashley

13
14

Peterson, Richard Silverstein, Bruce Goldstone, Silverstein Realty Group LLC, SRG Manager

15

LLC, and Hayden Manager LLC filed an administrative motion to extend their time to answer or

16

otherwise respond to the first amended complaint by 60 days. (Defs.’ Mot., Dkt. No. 16.)

17

Defendants asked Plaintiff to stipulate to the extension of time, but Plaintiff refused. (Decl. of Joel

18

Feldman, Dkt. No. 16 at 4 ¶ 6.)
On May 15, 2017,1 Plaintiff filed an opposition stating that the material allegations were

19
20

the same as those contained in the operative complaint, and that if Defendants had wanted

21

additional time, they should have agreed to waive service. (Pl.’s Opp’n, Dkt. No. 17 at 2.)
While Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court finds that the Northern District’s Guidelines

22
23

for Professional Conduct are instructive in terms of how law should be practiced. Specifically,

24

they provide that “[c]onsistent with existing law and court orders, a lawyer should agree to

25

reasonable requests for extensions of time when the legitimate interests of his or her client will not

26
27
28

1

The May 15, 2017 submission was incorrectly e-filed as an administrative motion, but appears to
be identical to the correctly e-filed document on May 16, 2017. (Dkt. No. 18.) Thus, the Court will
consider the May 15, 2017 opposition timely filed, and disregards the duplicate filing.

1

be adversely affected.” (N.D. Guidelines § 4.) In the interest of professionalism, this includes

2

requests for additional time to respond to pleadings. (See id. at § 4c (“Unless time is of the

3

essence, a lawyer should agree as a matter of courtesy to first requests for reasonable extensions of

4

time, even if the requesting counsel previously refused to grant an extension.”).)

5

Here, there is no indication that time is of the essence despite the fact that Plaintiff’s

6

requested relief includes injunctive relief. First, not all defendants appear to have been served in

7

this action. Second, the initial case management conference is not until August 22, 2017. Thus,

8

Plaintiff’s interests will not be adversely affected by the proposed extension.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

In light of the foregoing, Defendants’ request for an extension of time is GRANTED.
Defendants shall file their response to the first amended complaint on or before July 10, 2017.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 6, 2017
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2