Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06903/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06903-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Age)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRYAN L. HILL, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) 

)

GORDON R. ENGLAND, Secretary of )

the Navy, )

)

Defendant. )

 )

 )

 )

 

Case No. 1:03-cv-6903 OWW TAG

Consolidated with 1:04-cv-5598 REC TAG

and 1:05-cv-0869 REC TAG

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S EX

PARTE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF

TIME TO RESPOND TO THIRD

AMENDED COMPLAINT

(Doc. 84)

This litigation involves multiple employment discrimination cases in which Bryan L. Hill

(“Plaintiff”) is appearing pro se. The cases are: Bryan L. Hill v. England, 1:03-cv-6903 OWW

TAG (“Consolidated Hill Action” or “Hill I”), Bryan L. Hill v. England, 1:04-cv-5598 REC TAG

(“Hill II,” which was previously ordered consolidated with Hill I ) and Bryan L. Hill v. England,

1:05-cv-00869 REC TAG (“Hill III,” which also was ordered consolidated with Hill I).

This Court’s most recent consolidation order, entered on May 25, 2006 (Doc. 78), also

ordered Plaintiff to file a third amended complaint on or before June 15, 2006 (Doc. 78, p. 6), later

extended on motion of Plaintiff (Doc. 80) to July 17, 2006. (Doc. 82). In light of the size of the

third amended complaint, 135 pages including exhibits (Doc. 83), Defendant now moves for a

30- day extension of time, until September 4, 2006, in which to file his response thereto. (Doc. 84).

DISCUSSION

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) provides that “[a] party shall plead in response to an amended pleading

within the time remaining for response to the original pleading or within 10 days after service of the

amended pleading, whichever period may be longer, unless the court otherwise orders.” Fed. R.

Case 1:03-cv-06903-LJO -TAG Document 85 Filed 08/01/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Civ. P. 15(a) (italics added). Given the timeliness of Defendant’s request for an extension and given

the size of Plaintiff’s amended pleading, the “unless the court otherwise orders” provision of Rule

15(a) is applicable. E.g. Clark v. Traughber, slip copy, 2006 WL 1279053 (W.D. Tenn. May 7,

2006) (“In this case, the Court has otherwise ordered that the defendants shall have twenty days to

respond to the amended complaint”).

Moreover, Local Rule 6-144(c) specifically permits ex parte requests for an initial extension

of time under certain circumstances. Local Rule 6-144(c) (“The Court may, in its discretion, grant

an initial extension ex parte upon the affidavit of counsel that a stipulation extending time cannot

reasonably be obtained, explaining the reasons why such a stipulation cannot be obtained and the

reasons why the extension is necessary”). Each of these circumstances, including the denial of a

stipulated extension, a declaration by counsel and a reason for the requested extension, is extant here.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s time to respond to Plaintiff’s third

amended complaint is extended to, and includes, September 5, 2006.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 1, 2006 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:03-cv-06903-LJO -TAG Document 85 Filed 08/01/06 Page 2 of 2