Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00303/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00303-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIA BOLLINGER, et al.

Plaintiffs,

v.

STARBUCKS CORPORATION, 

Defendant.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00303-JLT-SAB

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

OPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF 

TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS’ 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

(ECF Nos. 41, 44) 

On July 1, 2024, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint. 

(ECF No. 23.) The hearing was set for November 6, 2024 due to the unavailability of counsel to 

hear the motion at an earlier date. (ECF No. 36.) Two days prior to the hearing, the parties filed 

a joint motion to vacate the hearing due to Plaintiffs’ intention to seek leave to file a second 

amended complaint. (ECF No. 37.) Plaintiffs represented that they intended to file a motion for 

leave to amend the first amended complaint by December 13, 2024 in light of Defendant’s recent 

change to its pricing policy for non-dairy milk beverage customization, which is the subject of 

this action. Plaintiffs proffered the lengthy extension was in part due to Plaintiffs’ counsel’s 

scheduled medical procedure. Defendants stipulated to this extension of time to accommodate 

Plaintiffs’ counsel’s personal matter. On November 4, 2024, the Court issued an order affording

Plaintiffs until December 13, 2024 to seek leave to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 38.)

On December 13, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to amend the first amended 

Case 1:24-cv-00303-JLT-SAB Document 45 Filed 12/20/24 Page 1 of 4
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

complaint, (ECF No. 40), making Defendant’s opposition, if any, due on December 27, 2024. 

L.R. 230(c).

On December 17, 2024, Defendant filed a motion for administrative relief seeking a 

seventeen day extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs’ motion. (ECF No. 41.) Defendant

proffered that the volume and nature of the Plaintiffs’ proposed amendments and the propriety of 

Plaintiffs’ motion required additional time to formulate an opposition. Further, Defendant 

provides a declaration by counsel that explains the extension is sought to accommodate

Defendant counsels’ upcoming holidays and vacation plans. (ECF No. 41-2 at 2.) Despite this 

reasoning being relayed to Plaintiffs’ counsel on December 16, 2024, Plaintiffs’ counsel informed 

Defendants’ counsel that Plaintiffs would oppose the extension. (Id. at 4.) 

On December 18, 2024, the Court ordered that Plaintiffs file any opposition to 

Defendant’s motion for an extension of time no later than December 20, 2024. (ECF No. 42.)

On December 20, 2024, Plaintiffs filed an opposition to Defendant’s motion. (ECF No. 

44.) Therein, Plaintiffs first object to Defendant’s motion because “there is no substantive basis

for Defendant to oppose Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file their second amended complaint.” (Id.

at 1.) Plaintiffs contend that “[e]ven a cursory review of the proposed Second Amended 

Complaint shows it is not futile and that the revisions are substantive and material....” (Id. at 2.) 

In the adversarial process, however, Plaintiffs do not make that determination. The Court will 

determine whether Rule 15 precludes amendment after review of the moving papers and 

opposition papers, if any. 

Plaintiffs also argue that in the November 4, 2024 joint motion, Defendant requested a 

forty-five day extension to respond to the amended complaint. Plaintiffs aver Defendant has now 

changed its position without any basis other than to unnecessarily delay the proceedings which is 

averse to the best interests of judicial economy. Plaintiffs therefore essentially argue 

that Defendant’s joint motion to vacate the hearing waived any right for Defendant to oppose 

any future motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. As a threshold matter, 

Defendant’s request for an extension of time to respond to the second amended complaint 

was denied because it was premature to grant an extension to respond to an amended 

2 

Case 1:24-cv-00303-JLT-SAB Document 45 Filed 12/20/24 Page 2 of 4
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

complaint that had not yet been filed. Further, Plaintiffs’ argument that Defendant has changed 

its position is contradicted by Defendant’s contention in the November 4, 2024 joint motion 

wherein Defendant stated that it “[took] no position on the propriety of a further amendment of 

the complaint as it ha[d] not yet seen Plaintiffs’ proposed SAC.” (ECF No. 37 at 22.) The Court 

does not find a seventeen day extension to consider whether any basis exists to oppose an 

amended complaint that contains contents that have purportedly taken Defendant by surprise is 

averse to the interest of judicial economy. Plaintiffs otherwise offer no argument that the request 

to accommodate Defendant’s counsels’ personal calendars for holiday plans and vacations is 

unreasonable. Particularly given the generous extension previously provided for Plaintiffs’ 

counsel’s own personal matter, the Court does not independently find a seventeen day extension 

of time—which includes two days of Court closures on December 31, 2024 and January 1, 2025 

and two weekends—will unnecessarily delay proceedings. 

Plaintiffs also opine that Defendant intends to substantively argue against the merits of 

Plaintiffs’ amendments in the proposed second amended complaint rather than the propriety of 

amendment under Rule 15. (ECF No. 44 at 2.) Plaintiffs thus request that the Court preemptively 

bar Defendant from filing an opposition under the unsupported assumption that Defendant will 

disregard the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and oppose Plaintiffs’ motion under Rule 12. The 

Court does not join Plaintiffs’ speculation that Defendant plans to improperly bring a motion to 

dismiss rather than an opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file the second amended 

complaint. Should Defendant ultimately do so, the Court is more than capable of disregarding 

such argument as improper and/or premature. 

In the alternative, Plaintiffs request that the Court limit Defendant’s opposition to five 

pages and impose a Friday, January 10, 2025 deadline. The Court does not find good cause to 

modify the page limitations provided by Local Rule 230(c) and the Court’s standing orders. 

Neither does the Court find good cause to limit the extension to January 10, 2025 rather than one 

business day later on January 13, 2025. Instead, the Court finds good cause to grant Defendant’s 

motion for a seventeen extension of time to file a response, if any, to Plaintiffs’ motion for leave 

to file the second amended complaint. 

Case 1:24-cv-00303-JLT-SAB Document 45 Filed 12/20/24 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

1. Defendant’s motion for a seventeen day extension of time (ECF No. 41) is

GRANTED;

2. Defendant shall file a response to Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file the second

amended complaint no later than January 13, 2025. Any opposition must

comport with Local Rule 230(c);

3. If the Court does not receive a response, it will be construed as a non-opposition to

Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file the second amended complaint pursuant to

Local Rule 230(c); and

4. The January 29, 2025 hearing shall remain on calendar. The parties are advised the

motion may be taken under submission and the hearing vacated after the Court has

reviewed the completed filings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 20, 2024 

STANLEY A. BOONE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:24-cv-00303-JLT-SAB Document 45 Filed 12/20/24 Page 4 of 4