Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sam Ferris v. City of San Jose

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION


December 5, 2011

SAM FERRIS,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
CITY OF SAN JOSE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lucy H. Koh United States District Judge

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 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.

Before the Court is Plaintiff's unopposed Motion for Additional Time to File a Rule 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 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 Pursuant to the November 16, 2011 Order Granting Defendants' Motions to Dismiss, 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 Court's November 16, 2011 Minute Order and Case Management Order, Plaintiff may bring such matter to the Court's attention, at which point the Court may reconsider Plaintiff's request.

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

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

Complaint and therefore DENIES Plaintiff's motion. If Defendants have not complied with the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, if any, remains due December 7, 2011. Plaintiff is free to allege additional facts relevant to his claims but shall not add any new causes of action or parties.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20111205

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.