Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00971/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00971-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

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

Upon review of Plaintiff’s complaint, it appears, Defendant “CDE” refers to the California

Department of Education.

2

It appears from the complaint and docket that RCH is Rady’s Children’s Hospital and OAH is the

State Office of Administrative Hearings.

07cv0971

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON P. STEWART,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

EDUCATION, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 07CV0971 JAH(CAB)

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S

APPLICATIONS

[Doc. Nos. 72, 73, 81]

On September 6, 2007, Plaintiff filed a document entitled “Ex parte Application

to Reissue Order for U.S. Marshal to Serve Summons & Complaint to Defendant CDE”1

and a motion for an enlargement of time to file a response to Defendants RCH’s and

OAH’s2 motions to dismiss and strike pleadings (“first application”). On September 17,

2007, this Court rejected Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant Rady’s Children’s Hospital’s

motion to dismiss and strike and Defendant State Office of Administrative Hearings’

motion to dismiss as untimely and notified Plaintiff he must seek leave and provide a

sufficient reason for not filing the responses timely. On October 10, 2007, Plaintiff filed

another request for leave to file a response to Defendant RCH’s motion to dismiss and

strike (“second application”). After a review of the documents, the Court GRANTS

Plaintiff’s second application for leave to file a response to Defendant RCH’s motion to

Case 3:07-cv-00971-MMA-WVG Document 88 Filed 10/18/07 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

3

The Court will reconsider the request, if Plaintiff properly files an application containing discussion

in support of his request.

4

 See footnote 3.

2 07cv0971

dismiss, DENIES Plaintiff’s first application for additional time to file responses to RCH’s

and OAH’s motions and DENIES Plaintiff’s application to direct service.

I. Application to Direct Service Upon California Department of Education

 Without discussion or authority cited in support, Plaintiff asks the Court to direct

the United States Marshal to serve the summons and complaint on Defendant CDE at an

address he provides. Because Plaintiff fails to provide any argument in support for

directing service of summons of process on Defendant CDE, there is insufficient cause for

granting his request. Accordingly, the application to issue an order directing service is

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.3

II. First Application for Enlargement of Time

Plaintiff seeks additional time to file oppositions to motions filed by Defendant

RCH and OAH. This Court previously provided Plaintiff an extension of time to

September 4, 2007 to file a response to Defendant RCH’s motion to dismiss and to strike

the complaint. Plaintiff was required to file a response to Defendant OAH’s motion to

dismiss and motion to strike on or before September 4, 2007. Plaintiff fails to provide any

explanation for why he was unable to file a response to the motions by the deadline. As

such, the Court is unable to determine whether the request for additional time is

reasonable and the application for an enlargement of time is DENIED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE.4

III. Second Application for Enlargement of Time

Plaintiff asserts the volume of documents required to prove his case and the

complexity of the case prevented him from filing a response to RCH’s motions timely. He

maintains he could not afford to duplicate hundreds of pages of documents and he was

responding to Defendant OAH’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiff does not explain why the

duplication of “hundreds of pages of documents” is necessary to respond to a motion to

dismiss brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) in light of the fact

Case 3:07-cv-00971-MMA-WVG Document 88 Filed 10/18/07 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 07cv0971

a court may only consider documents attached to the complaint, documents relied upon

but not attached to the complaint when authenticity is not contested and matters of which

a court takes judicial notice. See Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688-89 (9th

Cir. 2001). Nevertheless, the Court finds Plaintiff’s request for additional time to file a

response to Defendant RCH’s motion is reasonable.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s application for an order to serve the summons and complaint on

Defendant CDE at the address provided is DENIED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE.

2. Plaintiff’s first application to for enlargement of time to file a response to

Defendant RCH’s motion and Defendant OAH’s motion is DENIED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

3. Plaintiff’s second application for additional time to file a response to

Defendant RCH’s motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file a response on

or before October 26, 2007. If Defendant Rady’s Children’s Hospital

wishes to file a reply, the reply shall be filed on or before November 2,

2007.

DATED: October 16, 2007

HON. JOHN A. HOUSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00971-MMA-WVG Document 88 Filed 10/18/07 Page 3 of 3