Ferris v. City of San Jose et al

Filing 40

Order by Hon. Lucy H. Koh denying 37 Motion for Extension of Time to File a First Amended Complaint.(lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/5/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13

SAM FERRIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF SAN JOSE, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 11-cv-01752-LHK
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO
FILE A FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT

On November 16, 2011, the Court issued an Order granting the City of San Jose and San

17

Jose Chief of Police’s Motion to Dismiss and granting the County of Santa Clara’s Motion to

18

Dismiss. See ECF No. 33. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend, but specifically held that

19

Plaintiff may not add new causes of action or parties without leave of the Court or stipulation of the

20

parties. See id. at 21. Also on November 16, 2011, the Court issued a Minute Order and Case

21

Management Order instructing the parties to exchange limited initial disclosures pursuant to

22

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) within 14 days of that Order. See ECF No. 34. Pursuant to

23

the Minute Order and Case Management Order, the Parties’ initial disclosures should have been

24

exchanged by November 30, 2011.

25

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion for Additional Time to File a Rule

26

15(a)(2) Motion and for Additional Time to File a First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff requests

27

seven days after receiving Defendants’ initial disclosures to file a Rule 15(a)(2) motion,

28

1
Case No.: 11-cv-01752-LHK
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT

1

presumably seeking leave of the Court to raise “additional legal cases/issues . . . as well as minor

2

factual matters.” Mot. at 2. Plaintiffs requests seven days after the Court rules on his anticipated

3

Rule 15(a)(2) motion to file his First Amended Complaint.

4

Pursuant to the November 16, 2011 Order Granting Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss,

5

Plaintiff must file a First Amended Complaint, if any, within 21 days of the date of that Order,

6

which is December 7, 2011. See ECF No. 33 at 21. The current deadline is already seven days

7

after Plaintiff should have received Defendants’ initial disclosures. Accordingly, the Court does

8

not find good cause for granting Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file a First Amended

9

Complaint and therefore DENIES Plaintiff’s motion. If Defendants have not complied with the

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Court’s November 16, 2011 Minute Order and Case Management Order, Plaintiff may bring such

11

matter to the Court’s attention, at which point the Court may reconsider Plaintiff’s request.

12

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, if any, remains due December 7, 2011. Plaintiff is free to

13

allege additional facts relevant to his claims but shall not add any new causes of action or parties.

14

Should Plaintiff wish to add new causes of action or parties, he may separately file a Rule 15(a)(2)

15

motion.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18
19

Dated: December 5, 2011

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2
Case No.: 11-cv-01752-LHK
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT