Farahani v. Floria et al

Filing 58

Order by Hon. Lucy H. Koh denying 57 Motion for Extension of Time to File.(lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/16/2013)

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
15
16

FRED FARMAHIN FARAHANI,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
RONALD A. FLORIA, ADOLFO SALAZAR, )
PLM LENDER SERVICES,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)

Case No.: 12-CV-04637-LHK
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
SECOND MOTION TO EXTEND TIME

On April 19, 2013, this Court GRANTED Defendant Floria’s motion to dismiss, and gave
17
Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint consistent with that order within 21 days, i.e., May 10,
18
2013. ECF No. 46.
19
On May 6, 2013, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Request Extension of Time from 21 Days to
20
35 day as per Order of Docket #46 and Docket #50 to Amend My Motions of Malicious Abuse of
21
Process.” ECF No. 54. Plaintiff stated that he could not comply with the May 10, 2013 deadline
22
due to his disability, and requested that the deadline be extended until May 24, 2013.
23
On May 8, 2013, this Court GRANTED Plaintiff’s motion, but cautioned Plaintiff that by
24
May 24, 2013, he must submit a full amended complaint (and not merely a “Motion of Malicious
25
Abuse of Process”). ECF No. 55.
26
On May 16, 2013, Plaintiff filed a “Request [sic] Reasonable Time Based Upon Physical
27
and Mental Examination Under FRCP Rule 35.” ECF No. 57. This document states in relevant
28
1
Case No.: 12-CV-04637-LHK
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION TO EXTEND TIME

1

part, “The Court also has never been aware of how my disability affects my performance in this

2

Court, so how much of a time extension do I need to produce the documents needed for this court.

3

This Court has the authority to exercise Fed Rule of Procedure 35to [sic] determine the amount

4

[sic] time a disable petitioner need for extension.” Id. at 1.

5

The Court granted Plaintiff’s previous request for an extension of time based on Plaintiff’s

6

own request that the deadline be extended from 21 days to 35 days. See ECF Nos. 54; 55. Plaintiff

7

has not indicated any changed circumstances or new information since that previous request. The

8

Court therefore DENIES Plaintiff’s second request for an extension of time for an unspecified

9

period.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11

Dated: May 16, 2013

12

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Case No.: 12-CV-04637-LHK
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION TO EXTEND TIME