Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00556/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00556-2/pdf.json

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, FRESNO DIVISION

GEORGE SOULIOTES,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF MODESTO; MODESTO POLICE 

DEP’T; MODESTO FIRE DEP’T; SGT. 

MIKE HARDEN; DET. ROGER LEE; DET. 

DICK RIDENOUR; DET. JOHN BUEHLER; 

DET. DODGE HENDEE; OFFICER JOE 

PIMENTEL; INVESTIGATOR BOB 

EVERS; INVESTIGATOR TOM 

REUSCHER; and DOES 1-10, INCLUSIVE,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-CV-00556-LJOSKO

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE EX PARTE 

APPLICATION FOR ONE DAY 

CONTINUANCE OF MOTION 

TO DISMISS OPPOSITION 

FILING DEADLINE

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s ex parte application for an additional one-day 

continuance of the motion to dismiss opposition deadline, previously set for April 18, 2016. Doc. 

144 (filed April 19, 2016). Requests for extension are governed by Local Rule 144. Local Rule 

144(d) explains that “[r]equests for Court-approved extensions brought on the required filing date 

for the pleading or other document are looked upon with disfavor.”

While the Court may, in its discretion, grant an initial ex parte request for an extension, 

there are pre-conditions to the exercise of that discretion. First, “all motions for extensions of time 

shall set forth the total period of extensions already obtained by the parties as to the particular 

matters for which the extension is sought.” Local Rule 144(b). By prior stipulation, the parties 

agreed to continue the deadlines related to the pending motion by almost one moth, in part 

because “plaintiff’s counsel’s schedule was unexpectedly interrupted with other matters that 

Case 1:15-cv-00556-LJO-SKO Document 54 Filed 04/20/16 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

ii

needed to be prioritized.” Doc. 50 at 2. Plaintiff’s counsel failed to mention this prior extension in 

her present application. 

Second, any ex parte extension request must be accompanied by an affidavit of counsel 

that “explains the reasons why []a stipulation cannot be obtained.” Local Rule 144(c). No such 

explanation is included in counsel’s affidavit. Doc. 53.

Third, counsel is required to explain why the extension is necessary. Local Rule 144(c). 

Counsel provided the generic explanation that “[u]nexpected matters arose in another of

Plaintiff’s counsel’s cases requiring her immediate attention, and while she expected to be able to 

attend to those matters and still complete and file Plaintiff’s response brief by the April 18 

deadline, she was ultimately not able to do.” Doc. 53 at 2. This is not a sufficient statement of 

good cause, particularly given the use of a nearly identical excuse in the context of the prior 

extension.

To add to the problem, the opposition filed by counsel exceeds the page limits set forth in 

this Court’s standing order by six pages. See Doc. 7-1. 

In light of all of these rules violations, Plaintiff’s request is DENIED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE. Counsel may file a supplemental affidavit supporting good cause and an expansion 

of the page limits on or before 3:00 pm (PSD) on Friday, April 22, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 20, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00556-LJO-SKO Document 54 Filed 04/20/16 Page 2 of 2