Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00492/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00492-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL HUPP,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12-cv-0492-GPC-RBB

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF

TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL

BRIEFING

[DKT. NO. 107]

vs.

SAN DIEGO POLICE

DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants.

On November 19, 2012, the Court granted Plaintiff his motion for extension of time to file

a fourth amended complaint and dismissed previous motions to dismiss as moot. (Dkt. No. 101.) 

Plaintiff was granted until December 14, 2012 to file his fourth amended complaint. (Id.) On

December 17, 2012, three days after the filing deadline for the fourth amended complaint had

passed, Plaintiff filed another motion for extension of time to file his fourth amended complaint. 

(Dkt. No. 107.) Having reviewed the motion, and the Court requests supplemental information

regarding the referenced state court criminal matter and its relevance to the current pending case.

Accordingly, Plaintiff shall file on or by January 23, 2013, a supplemental briefing that includes

the case file number of the state court criminal action, and an explanation of how the criminal case

is related to the instant one. 

- 1 - 12-cv-0492-GPC-RBB

Case 3:12-cv-00492-GPC-JLB Document 109 Filed 01/03/13 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

DISCUSSION

This is Plaintiff’s fourth request for extension of time to file a fourth amended complaint.

On September 5, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint.

(Dkt. No. 66.) Defendants then filed motions to dismiss the third amended complaint. (Dkt. Nos.

72-73.) 

On September 26, 2012 Judge Gonzalez denied Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a Fourth

Amended Complaint without prejudice and ordered that on or before October 15, 2012, Plaintiff

file a Fourth Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 84.) On October 16, 2012, Plaintiff filed an ex parte

motion for extension of time to file a Fourth Amended Complaint, seeking an extension until

November 12, 2012. (Dkt. No. 93.) 

On October 22, 2012, this case was transferred to the undersigned judge and all pending

hearing dates were vacated. (Dkt. No. 94.) On November 2, 2012, Plaintiff filed a third motion for

extension of time to file a Fourth Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 98.) The Court reviewed

Plaintiff’s motion, and granted an extension of time until December 14, 2012 to file the fourth

amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 107.) Plaintiff now submits his fourth request for an extension of

time to file the fourth amended complaint. His main reason for seeking an extension of time is to

“preserve work product/strategy/theory in a current pending state criminal case.” He cites to

Owens v. Kaiser, in which the Ninth Circuit asks the Court to consider any of the four factors in

considering leave under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a): “bad faith, undue delay, prejudice

to the opposing party, and/or futility.” Owens v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d

708 (9 Cir. 2001). Given that the Court has insufficient information to determine whether th

Plaintiff’s reason for a continuance has any merit, the Court instructs Plaintiff to file a

supplemental briefing on or before January 23, 2013. 

DATED: January 3, 2013

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

Unite States District Judge

- 2 - 12-cv-0492-GPC-RBB

Case 3:12-cv-00492-GPC-JLB Document 109 Filed 01/03/13 Page 2 of 2