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.

Hanford Executive Management Employee Association, Cathy Cain, Louis Camara, George v. City of Hanford

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


March 12, 2012

HANFORD EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEE ASSOCIATION, CATHY CAIN, LOUIS CAMARA, GEORGE THOMAS DIBBLE, TIMOTHY IERONIMO, MARY ROSE LINDSAY, CARLOS MESTAS,
SCOTT YEAGER,
PLAINTIFFS,
v.
CITY OF HANFORD, HILARY STRAUS, DAN CHIN, SUE SORENSEN, JIM IRWIN, LOU MARTINEZ, JOLEEN JAMESON,
DEFENDANTS.

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT(Doc. 43)

Plaintiffs Hanford Executive Management Employee Association et al. have filed an ex parte application for extension of time to file a first amended complaint. Having reviewed the pleadings of record and all competent and admissible evidence submitted, including the declaration of Jason H. Jasmine, the Court finds Plaintiffs have failed to establish good cause for an extension under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b). Plaintiffs first contend they are "presently evaluating their appellate options," presumably in reference to the Court's November 17, 2011 and/or February 23, 2012 orders dismissing the complaint and denying reconsideration of the dismissal, respectively, and that "[f]iling an amended complaint . . . may potentially have an impact on appeal[.]" Plaintiffs have provided no authority -- and the Court's research reveals no authority -- to suggest such reasons could conceivably constitute good cause. Plaintiffs further contend they are "also assessing which portions of the complaint to amend." The Court notes Plaintiffs have had nearly four months -- since entry of the Court's November 17, 2011 order dismissing their complaint -- to file an amended complaint, which is significantly more than the thirty days the Court typically affords litigants. Under these circumstances, additional time to amend is unwarranted. See State of California ex rel. Mueller v. Walgreen Corp., 175 F.R.D. 638, 639-40 (N.D.Cal. 1997). Accordingly, Plaintiffs' ex parte application for extension of time to file a first amended complaint is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20120312

© 1992-2012 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.