Yadav-Ranjan v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC et al

Filing 93

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING EX PARTE MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME. Re: Dkt. No. 92 . By tomorrow, 2/15/2018, at noon, attorney Moss is ORDERED to file a declaration in response to this order. Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 2/14/2018. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/14/2018)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 RANI YADAV-RANJAN, Plaintiff, United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, et al., Case No. 17-cv-03939 NC ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING EX PARTE MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME Re: Dkt. No. 92 Defendants. 15 16 On February 1, 2018, the Court issued its order on the motions to dismiss this case, 17 and gave plaintiff Rani Yadav-Ranjan until February 15 to amend her complaint. Dkt. No. 18 88. On February 13, attorney Daniel P. White filed an “Ex Parte Application For 19 Extension of Time to File Motion to Amend.” Dkt. No. 92. Attorney White requests a 20 two-week extension of the February 15 deadline to file the motion for leave to file the 21 amended complaint due to his having pneumonia. Id. at 2. Attorney White states that he is 22 the contract attorney who “has been assigned the task of preparing the motion and the 23 complaint[.]” Id. 24 This request is problematic for several reasons. First, attorney White has not 25 appeared in this case. Civil L. R. 5-1(c)(2). He must do so to participate as an attorney in 26 this action. Second, attorney White is not the attorney who drafted the dismissed 27 complaint, so far as the Court can tell. Attorney Moss drafted the complaint. As a result, 28 while the Court is understanding of attorney White’s poor health, the ex parte application Case No. 17-cv-03939 NC 1 does not explain why attorney Moss cannot amend the complaint he drafted. As a matter 2 of common sense, attorney Moss would best know the way to amend the complaint he 3 drafted. The Court disapproves of attorney Moss’s remaining silent and not participating 4 in any way in this ex parte application. He is the only attorney actively on record in this 5 case. Moreover, the ex parte application does not explain why defendants were not 6 consulted regarding the requested extension that might prejudice them. It was improper to 7 file this motion as such. Civil L. R. 7-10. 8 Thus, by tomorrow, February 15, 2018, at noon, attorney Moss is ORDERED to file a declaration explaining: (1) why he cannot file the motion to amend the complaint and 10 draft the amended complaint himself within the permitted time period; and (2) why an 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 9 emergency ex parte motion was necessary. 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 Dated: February 14, 2018 16 _____________________________________ NATHANAEL M. COUSINS United States Magistrate Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No. 17-cv-03939 NC 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?