Mohebbi v. Khazen et al

Filing 61

ORDER by Judge Beth Labson Freeman denying 54 Motion to Shorten Time. (blflc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/13/2014)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

SAEID MOHEBBI,

Case No. 13-cv-03044-BLF

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

MAHNAZ KHAZEN, et al.,
Defendants.

11

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME FOR
HEARING ON HIS MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Re: Dkt. No. 54
12
13

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Shorten Time for Hearing on his Motion for

14

Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint (“Motion for Leave”), filed with the Court on May 7,

15

2014. Plaintiff contends that hearing the Motion for Leave before the scheduled June 12, 2014

16

hearing on Defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint would further

17

the interests of justice and judicial economy, and will not prejudice Defendants’ interests. The

18

Court, having considered the Motion to Shorten Time and Defendants’ Opposition, hereby

19

DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion.

20

The Court believes that judicial efficiency is best effectuated by the Court considering the

21

first-filed motion, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint. A ruling from

22

the Court on the Motion to Dismiss will presumably advise Plaintiff on the need for further

23

amendment prior to the filing of the Second Amended Complaint, if allowed by the Court.

24

Though the Court denies this Motion to Shorten Time, the Court takes issue with

25

Defendants’ contention that the filing of this Motion was an inappropriate Motion for

26

Reconsideration. At the May 6, 2014 Case Management Conference, the Court engaged in

27

informal discussion with the parties on the issue of the priority of these matters; however, the

28

Court issued no order. Plaintiff was not precluded from moving for an order shortening time on his

1

Motion for Leave. The Court’s comments at the Case Management Conference did not constitute

2

an order denying Plaintiff’s request, and Defendant has improperly described this Motion as a

3

Motion for Reconsideration.

4
5
6
7
8
9

Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED, and the Motion for Leave to Amend will not be heard
before the June 12, 2014 hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 12, 2014
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2