Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00429/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00429-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES ACE COOK, JR, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

CITY OF CALIFORNIA CITY, et al.

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. 1:16-cv-00429-DAD-JLT

ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR 

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO SECOND 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

(Doc. 50)

On December 29, 2016, counsel filed a stipulation to continue the scheduling conference 

based upon the representation by the defendants that they intended to filed motions to dismiss or 

motions to strike the second amended complaint. (Doc. 47 at 2-3) The second amended complaint 

had been filed just the day before but, apparently, the defendants had sufficient time to review the 

complaint and to determine that it suffered from one or more pleading defect. The Court granted the 

continuance. (Doc. 49) 

Now, exactly one week later, counsel filed another stipulation. (Doc. 50) In this one, they 

seek to extend the deadline by which the defendants must file their responsive pleadings. Id. In 

support of the extension, defense counsel indicate that due to the length of the second amended 

complaint, they need “additional time to evaluate” the complaint. Id. The Court is at a loss to 

understand how they knew on December 29th that the complaint was infirm but now need more 

Case 1:16-cv-00429-DAD-JLT Document 51 Filed 01/05/17 Page 1 of 2
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

time to “evaluate” it. Furthermore, they offer no explanation for their piecemeal approach when 

presenting their stipulations to this Court.

Nevertheless, the Court will grant the stipulation. However, counsel are advised that the 

Court will not entertain any further stipulations that seek to delay responding to the complaint or to 

delay scheduling this case. The scheduling conference will go forward on March 29 regardless of 

whether the defendants file motions to dismiss or strike, regardless of whether these motions have 

been heard and regardless of whether the motions have been decided. Thus, the defendants are 

strongly urged to expedite their “evaluation” of the complaint and to respond immediately.

ORDER

Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:

1. The stipulation (Doc. 50) is GRANTED. The defendants SHALL file their 

responsive pleading no later than January 25, 2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 5, 2017 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00429-DAD-JLT Document 51 Filed 01/05/17 Page 2 of 2