McRee v. Goldman et al

Filing 75

Order by Hon. Lucy H. Koh granting in part and denying in part 67 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint.(lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/21/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14

RICHARD T. MCREE,
Plaintiff,
v.
RICHARD N. GOLDMAN, ET AL.,
Defendants.

15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 11-CV-00991-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT
DOUGLAS E. GOLDMAN’S MOTION
TO ENLARGE TIME TO RESPOND TO
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT

16
On November 14, 2011, Defendant Douglas E. Goldman (“Defendant”) moved the Court
17
for an order extending the time for Defendant to respond to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint
18
(“FAC”) from November 21, 2011 to December 21, 2011. Defendant’s only ground for requesting
19
additional time to respond is the lengthiness of the FAC. Whereas Plaintiff’s original Complaint
20
was 29 pages, the FAC is 50 pages long. Pro se Plaintiff Richard T. McRee (“Plaintiff”) opposes
21
this Motion, arguing that the Court granted him only 21 days from the date of its October 12, 2011
22
Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss to file a First Amended Complaint, with which he
23
complied in full. See FAC, ECF No. 61.
24
The Court agrees with Plaintiff that Defendant has not shown good cause justifying a one
25
month extension. Neither side is entitled to any extensions as a matter of right. Furthermore,
26
Defendant is represented by able counsel, whereas Plaintiff is representing himself pro se.
27
Nevertheless, due to the fact that Plaintiff has filed a FAC nearly twice the length of his original
28

1
Case No.: 11-CV-00991-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME TO RESPOND TO
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

Complaint, notwithstanding the Court’s admonition to comply with Federal Rule of Civil

2

Procedure 8(a)(2), see ECF No. 60 at 13, and the fact that Plaintiff was granted 21 days to amend

3

his Complaint, the Court finds it reasonable also to allow Defendant 21 days to respond to

4

Plaintiff’s enlarged FAC. Accordingly, Defendant’s response shall be due Monday, November 28,

5

2011.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

Dated: November 21, 2011

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

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

2
Case No.: 11-CV-00991-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME TO RESPOND TO
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT