Khan v. World Savings Bank, FSB

Filing 27

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO ENLARGE TIME AND DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE re 25 MOTION for Extension of Time to File MOTION to Stay re 21 Order, filed by Seema Khan. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 5/2/2011. (ejdlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/2/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Plaintiff(s),

11
12
13

NO. 5:10-cv-04305-EJD

SEEMA KHAN,

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO
ENLARGE TIME AND DISMISSING CASE
WITHOUT PREJUDICE

v.
WORLD SAVINGS BANK, FSB.,
Defendant(s).

14

/

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

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Enlarge Time to file an amended
complaint, as well as Plaintiff’s request the Court “grant a stay in this case due to the ongoing and
active” bankruptcy proceedings involving Plaintiff. See Docket Item No. 25.
On January 14, 2011, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint, having determined Plaintiff
failed to state a claim. See Docket Item No. 16. The Court gave Plaintiff thirty days to file an
amended complaint. Before the thirty-day period expired, Plaintiff filed a motion to extend the time
to amend wherein she stated she was seeking new counsel as her prior attorney had ceased
communications with her. See Docket Item No. 18. The Court granted Plaintiff’s request and
extended the deadline to March 28, 2011. See Docket Item No. 20. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed
another extension request on March 28, 2011, stating she would retain new counsel on April 5,
2011. See Docket Item No. 22. The Court again granted Plaintiff’s request and extended the
deadline to April 28, 2011, but cautioned that “no further extensions will be granted.” See Docket
Item No. 21.

1

In a motion consisting of only one sentence, Plaintiff now seeks a further extension of time

2

to file an amended complaint despite the Court’s specific warning that none would be granted.

3

Plaintiff means to suggest from the bankruptcy reference that she has been distracted from this case,

4

but has not included any materials to support this suggestion. Moreover, Plaintiff still has not

5

retained a new attorney even though she stated in her prior request she would retain one imminently.

6

In short, it appears Plaintiff has done little to progress this case since January 11, 2011, and has not

7

demonstrated why, in over three months, she could not comply with the Court’s order to amend her

8

complaint. Considering nothing has been accomplished by the prior extensions, allowing yet

9

another will do nothing more than cause further delay. That being the case, another extension is

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

unwarranted.
Regarding Plaintiff’s request for a stay, the Court notes the automatic stay provisions of 11

12

U.S.C. §362 do not apply here. Further, the Court finds no good cause to stay this case to the extent

13

Plaintiff seeks to invoke this Court’s inherent power to do so.

14

In light of the discussion above, Plaintiff’s request to enlarge time is DENIED. In addition,

15

her request for a stay of this case is DENIED. Pursuant to the Court’s prior order (see Docket Item

16

No. 21) as well as Defendant’s request (see Docket Item No. 26), this case is DISMISSED

17

WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The Clerk shall close this file.

18
19
Dated: May 2, 2011
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

1

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

2

Wendell Jamon Jones [e-mail]
Jeremy E Shulman [e-mail]

3
Dated: May 2, 2011

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

4
5

By: /s/ EJD Chambers
Elizabeth Garcia
Courtroom Deputy

6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3