Hupp v. San Diego County District Attorney et al

Filing 109

ORDER Directing Plaintiff To File Supplemental Briefing. Set Deadlines as to 107 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Fourth Amended Complaint. Supplemental briefing due by 1/23/2013. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 1/3/2013.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(srm)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PAUL HUPP,

12

CASE NO. 12-cv-0492-GPC-RBB
Plaintiff,

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF
TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL
BRIEFING

vs.
13
14

SAN DIEGO POLICE
DEPARTMENT, et al.,

15

[DKT. NO. 107]
Defendants.

16
17

On November 19, 2012, the Court granted Plaintiff his motion for extension of time to file

18

a fourth amended complaint and dismissed previous motions to dismiss as moot. (Dkt. No. 101.)

19

Plaintiff was granted until December 14, 2012 to file his fourth amended complaint. (Id.) On

20

December 17, 2012, three days after the filing deadline for the fourth amended complaint had

21

passed, Plaintiff filed another motion for extension of time to file his fourth amended complaint.

22

(Dkt. No. 107.) Having reviewed the motion, and the Court requests supplemental information

23

regarding the referenced state court criminal matter and its relevance to the current pending case.

24

Accordingly, Plaintiff shall file on or by January 23, 2013, a supplemental briefing that includes

25

the case file number of the state court criminal action, and an explanation of how the criminal case

26

is related to the instant one.

27
28
-1-

12-cv-0492-GPC-RBB

1

DISCUSSION

2

This is Plaintiff’s fourth request for extension of time to file a fourth amended complaint.

3

On September 5, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint.

4

(Dkt. No. 66.) Defendants then filed motions to dismiss the third amended complaint. (Dkt. Nos.

5

72-73.)

6

On September 26, 2012 Judge Gonzalez denied Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a Fourth

7

Amended Complaint without prejudice and ordered that on or before October 15, 2012, Plaintiff

8

file a Fourth Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 84.) On October 16, 2012, Plaintiff filed an ex parte

9

motion for extension of time to file a Fourth Amended Complaint, seeking an extension until

10
11

November 12, 2012. (Dkt. No. 93.)
On October 22, 2012, this case was transferred to the undersigned judge and all pending

12

hearing dates were vacated. (Dkt. No. 94.) On November 2, 2012, Plaintiff filed a third motion for

13

extension of time to file a Fourth Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 98.) The Court reviewed

14

Plaintiff’s motion, and granted an extension of time until December 14, 2012 to file the fourth

15

amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 107.) Plaintiff now submits his fourth request for an extension of

16

time to file the fourth amended complaint. His main reason for seeking an extension of time is to

17

“preserve work product/strategy/theory in a current pending state criminal case.” He cites to

18

Owens v. Kaiser, in which the Ninth Circuit asks the Court to consider any of the four factors in

19

considering leave under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a): “bad faith, undue delay, prejudice

20

to the opposing party, and/or futility.” Owens v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d

21

708 (9th Cir. 2001).

22

Plaintiff’s reason for a continuance has any merit, the Court instructs Plaintiff to file a

23

supplemental briefing on or before January 23, 2013.

Given that the Court has insufficient information to determine whether

24
25 DATED: January 3, 2013
26
27

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL
Unite States District Judge

28
-2-

12-cv-0492-GPC-RBB