Shetty v. Alphabet Yahoo Google et al
ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong granting 14 Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to Amend Complaint 1 Complain. Amended Pleadings due by 4/7/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/28/2017)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No: C 17-00589 SBA
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF
TIME TO AMEND COMPLAINT
ALPHABET, et al.,
Plaintiff Shruti Shetty (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
initiated the instant action on February 3, 2017. Dkt. 1. On February 27, 2017, the Court
issued an Order Dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint with Leave to Amend (“Order”). Dkt. 10.
The Court afforded Plaintiff until March 20, 2017, to file an amended complaint. Id. at 5.
The Court cautioned, “Failure to file an amended complaint by this deadline may result in
the dismissal of the action in its entirety without further leave to amend.” Id. at 6.
On March 27, 2017, Plaintiff filed the instant Request for Extension in Time to
Submit Amended Complaint. Dkt. 14.1 She requests a “few additional days” to amend her
complaint. Id. at 2. Plaintiff asserts that an extension is necessary due to: (1) “increased
stress from filing multiple complaints and orders through 5 cases simultaneously filed [by
her] in the last 1-2 months”; (2) the need to study “multiple legal subjects outside the scope
of [her] work and knowledge”; and (3) her illness in early January and again in the first
week of February. Id. at 1-2.
The Court notes that Plaintiff mailed the request on March 20, 2017.
The Court finds the asserted justifications for an extension largely unpersuasive.
First, given that the Court issued its Order on February 27, Plaintiff’s illnesses in early
January and the first week of February are irrelevant. While Plaintiff suggests her illnesses
may have prevented her from filing an original complaint sufficient to withstand dismissal,
that has no bearing on her ability to draft an amended complaint. Second, although
Plaintiff may be managing deadlines in multiple actions, she has chosen to initiate these
suits and must comply with typical litigation deadlines. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52,
54 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Although we construe pleadings liberally in their favor, pro se litigants
are bound by the rules of procedure.”) Finally, while the Court appreciates that Plaintiff
may not be versed in the law, the Court already took that into account when it afforded her
21 days to amend her complaint.
Despite the foregoing, the Court will grant Plaintiff a brief extension of time to file
an amended complaint. The Court notes that Plaintiff waited until the amendment deadline
to request an extension. As a result, eight days have already elapsed since the amendment
deadline. Taking this into account, the Court will afford Plaintiff an additional seven days
to amend her complaint, with three additional days for service of the instant order by mail.
Accordingly, Plaintiff shall file her amended complaint by no later than Friday, April
7, 2017. The Court warns Plaintiff that failure to file an amended complaint by this
deadline WILL RESULT IN THE DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION IN ITS
ENTIRETY WITHOUT FURTHER LEAVE TO AMEND.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
Senior United States District 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?