Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00291/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00291-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOE FLORES, an individual, and )

CONNIE FLORES, an individual, ) 

)

Plaintiffs, )

v. )

)

EMERICH & FIKE, a professional )

 corporation, et al., )

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

1: 05 - CV - 0291 AWI DLB

ORDER GRANTING

APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION

OF TIME TO FILE AMENDED

COMPLAINT

(Documents #300 #302)

The history of this case, and its related two cases, is well known to the parties and will

not be restated here. In short, this case – the third in a string of lawsuits – was filed against

attorneys who had represented corporate defendants in the first case (“Defendants Emerich &

Fike”), along with individuals alleged to be the alter egos and/or otherwise in control of the now

defunct corporate defendants from the first lawsuit. After the court dismissed the claims against

Defendants Emerich & Fike in this action, on October 12, 2006, the Clerk of the Court entered

Judgement as to Defendants Emerich & Fike. Plaintiffs promptly appealed. 

Meanwhile, default was entered in this action as to some Defendants by the Clerk of the

Court. Because no properly noticed motion for default judgment was ever set before the

Magistrate Judge as required by Local Rule, default judgment was never entered as to any

Defendant. 

Then, in May 2007, other Defendants, including the “Hagobian Defendants”, the

“Yeramian Defendants”, and Russell Davidson and W.D. Farming LLC filed motions to dismiss. 

Case 1:05-cv-00291-AWI -DLB Document 304 Filed 09/05/07 Page 1 of 3
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

After allowing extension briefing, on July 30, 2007, the court granted the motions to dismiss and

dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiffs were ordered to file an amended

complaint within thirty days.

On August 17, 2007, Plaintiffs filed an ex parte application for more time in which to file

an amended complaint. Plaintiffs contend that they would be prejudiced if they are forced to

file an amended complaint prior to a ruling by the Ninth Circuit regarding Defendants Emerich &

Fike. In addition, Plaintiffs point out that default has been entered against several Defendants,

and Plaintiffs request the court explain the legal status of these Defendants before requiring

Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. 

Plaintiffs’ filing essentially asks this court to give them legal advice, which the court is

unable to do. To the extent judgment has been entered as to Defendants Emerich & Fike, this

judgment is final until reversed by the Ninth Circuit. When filing any amended complaint,

Plaintiffs are reminded that such an amended complaint may not include these Defendants. If

the Ninth Circuit reverses this court’s orders regarding Defendants Emerich & Fike, the court

will resolve how to best include them in this lawsuit at that time. The interlocutory appeal of

one set of Defendants, alone, does not automatically stay the action against the other Defendants. 

 Finally, until a judgment, as opposed to the mere entry of default, is entered as to any other

Defendant, Plaintiffs have not obtained a judgment in their favor.

To allow Plaintiffs time to consider the court’s July 30, 2007 order and its various legal

implications, the court will grant Plaintiffs’ request and provide Plaintiffs with thirty additional

days in which to file an amended complaint. 

Accordingly, based on the above, the court ORDERS that:

1. Plaintiffs’ ex parte request for more time to file an amended complaint is

GRANTED;

2. Plaintiffs shall file any amended complaint within thirty days of this order’s date

of service; and

Case 1:05-cv-00291-AWI -DLB Document 304 Filed 09/05/07 Page 2 of 3
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 3

3. Plaintiffs are FOREWARNED that failure to file an amended complaint within

thirty days will result in this action’s dismissal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 5, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00291-AWI -DLB Document 304 Filed 09/05/07 Page 3 of 3