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)

Download PDF
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

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?