Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-04378/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-04378-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Insurance Contract

---

1

Case No.: 5:14-cv-04378 EJD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

TO AMEND COMPLAINT

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

KHOA DANG NGUYEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

RANDY PARKER,

Defendant.

Case No. 5:14-cv-04378 EJD 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX 

PARTE APPLICATION FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO AMEND 

COMPLAINT

Re: Dkt. No. 20

On December 8, 2014, this court granted a motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Randy 

Parker (“Parker”), in his individual capacity as Chief Executive Officer and President of 

Permanent General Companies (“The General”). See Docket Item No. 18. The court explained in

its written order that Plaintiff Khoa Dang Nguyen’s (“Nguyen”) Complaint was insufficient for 

two reasons: (1) Nguyen did not allege facts to establish personal jurisdiction over Parker in his 

individual capacity, and (2) Nguyen did not allege sufficient facts to state a claim against Parker. 

Nguyen was therefore dismissed as a party to this action without prejudice.

The court also dismissed Nguyen’s Complaint in its entirety but allowed leave to amend 

with specific instructions. To that end, Nguyen was permitted to file an amended complaint on or 

before December 31, 2014, but in doing so Nguyen had to (1) exclude Parker as a defendant and 

instead name The General along with allegations to establish subject matter and personal 

Case 5:14-cv-04378-EJD Document 21 Filed 01/05/15 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No.: 5:14-cv-04378 EJD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

TO AMEND COMPLAINT

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

Northern District of California

jurisdiction, and (2) establish a basis to sue The General by showing that he either obtained a 

judgment against The General’s insured or obtained an assignment of rights from the insured. In 

addition, the court advised Nguyen “that failure to file a timely amended complaint or failure to 

amend the complaint” consistent with the court’s instructions could result in this dismissal of this 

action without further notice. 

Nguyen now moves, ex parte, for an extension of the deadline to file an amended 

complaint. See Docket Item No. 20. In support, Nguyen states that he is collecting further 

evidence concerning his own automobile insurance policy and is seeking legal assistance. These 

are not sufficient reasons to extend the deadline, however, in light of the specific amendment 

instructions provided by the court. Indeed, information about Nguyen’s own insurance policy is 

unnecessary in order to file an amended complaint. Neither is it necessary for Nguyen to seek 

additional legal advice to comply with the court’s order. His ex parte application demonstrates 

that he has already consulted an attorney who declined to assist him further because he, like the 

court, believes it unlikely that Nguyen can produce the judgment or assignment necessary to bring 

a claim against The General. 

Accordingly, Nguyen’s ex parte application is DENIED. Without a viable pleading, this 

action is DISMISSED. The Clerk shall close this file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 5, 2015

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:14-cv-04378-EJD Document 21 Filed 01/05/15 Page 2 of 2