Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-01451/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-01451-11/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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JENNIFER BROWN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

JON ALEXANDER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-01451-RS 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' 

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO 

RESPOND AND DENYING THE

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 

THE COMPLAINT

On January 13, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ claim for loss of 

familial association to be heard on March 3, 2016. The deadline to respond to the motion to 

dismiss was January 27, 2016, but plaintiffs did not file an opposition by that deadline. On 

February 16, 2016, plaintiffs filed an “Ex Parte Application” for leave to file a late opposition 

brief and for leave to amend the complaint. 

Defendants’ attorney has filed a declaration in response to plaintiffs’ request to submit the 

untimely brief and explained that plaintiffs’ attorney, Patricia Barry, requested a stipulation to 

continue the hearing because she could not travel due to various health problems. Defendants 

suggested that Barry seek leave to appear by telephone, but she has not done so.

In light of the foregoing, plaintiffs’ ex parte application will be construed as a motion to 

change time pursuant to Local Rule 6-3 and a motion for leave to file an amended complaint 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. Their motion for leave to file an untimely brief is 

granted. Defendants must file their reply brief by February 26, 2016. The hearing on the motion 

Case 3:13-cv-01451-RS Document 131 Filed 02/18/16 Page 1 of 2
<< SHORT ORDER TITLE >>

CASE NO. 13-cv-01451-RS

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

will be continued until March 17, 2016. If, after defendants file their reply, it becomes apparent 

that the motion should be submitted without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 7-1(b), the 

parties will be notified. 

Plaintiffs have not, however, complied with the requirements of Rule 15 or established that 

they are entitled to leave to amend the complaint. Accordingly, the motion for leave to amend is 

denied without prejudice. If plaintiffs believe they can, in good faith, add additional claims to

their complaint, then they must seek leave to do so in accordance with Rule 15.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 18, 2016

______________________________________

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-01451-RS Document 131 Filed 02/18/16 Page 2 of 2