Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00520/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00520-33/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

A

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAMELA J. FOX, ON BEHALF OF 

HERSELF AND AS NEXT FRIEND TO 

D.M.R., A MINOR,

 Plaintiffs,

 

 vs.

COUNTY OF TULARE, LETICIA 

CASTANEDA, ERICA SOTO, RON 

CASTANEDA, JULIA LANGLEY, CAROL 

HELDING, JOHN ROZUM, STEVEN D. 

RODGERS and DOES 1-100, 

 

 

 Defendants. 

1:11-cv-O520 AWI SMS

EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPLY 

AND ORDER THEREON

EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR REPLY

Defendants, LETICIA CASTANEDA, ERICA SOTO, and RON CASTANEDA, hereby 

apply to this Court for an order extending the deadline for filing their reply to plaintiffs’ 

opposition to the motion for summary judgment/summary adjudication on the grounds that good 

cause exists for extending the time within which Defendants may reply to Plaintiffs’ opposition. 

Good caused is due to the length of Plaintiffs’ points and authorities (50 pages), the number of 

Plaintiffs’ exhibits (160) and the time-consuming effort to identify Plaintiffs’ evidence which 

routinely does not include citations to specific exhibits or documents. [See Doc. 207 and 232] 

Case 1:11-cv-00520-AWI-SMS Document 239 Filed 05/01/14 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

-2-

A

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, PAMELA FOX, on behalf of herself and minor CMR, filed a complaint for 

damages against Defendants on March 24, 2011. Defendants filed their motion for summary 

judgment/adjudication of issues on January 21, 2014. Plaintiffs’ opposition was due on February 

14, 2014. Plaintiffs were subsequently granted two separate requests for extensions of time to 

oppose the motion. [Docs. 188 and 201] The deadline for filing the opposition was extended to 

April 17, 2014; and Defendants reply to the opposition was to be filed on or before May 2, 2014. 

[Doc. 201] In that Order, the Court stated, “Further extension of time will not be granted for 

submissions of Plaintiffs’ [sic] opposition, however Defendants may move for a one week 

further extension of time to reply.” Defendants hereby request an extension of one week to reply 

to Plaintiffs’ opposing papers, to be filed and served on or before May 9, 2014.

LAW AND ARGUMENT

A. A Request for Extension of Time to Plead May Be Made by Ex Parte Application.

A schedule may be modified for good cause and with the Judge’s consent. Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 16(b)(4). An ex parte application is recognized as an appropriate procedure for seeking an 

extension of time to file a pleading. Gallo Winery v. Andina Licores S.A., 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 

20113, *1-2 (E.D. Cal. 2006); Hall v. Placer County Sheriff’s Department, 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 

114348, *1 (E.D.Cal. 2013); Stewart v. Wachowski, 2005 U.S. Dist. Lexis 46704, *33 (C.D. Cal. 

2005).)

An ex parte motion is proper where the court does not typically need an adversary 

presentation from the other side in order to make its ruling. In Re Intermagnetics America, Inc.

(C.D. Cal. 1989) 101 B.R. 191, 193.

B. Good Cause Exists for Extending the Deadline for Filing Defendants’ Reply.

The moving parties should be allowed relief by ex parte motion because this Court has 

previously granted Plaintiffs two extensions of time to file their opposition and has indicated in 

its order of March 7, 2014, that an extension of one week for Defendants to serve and file their 

reply would be permitted upon request. [Doc. 201]

Case 1:11-cv-00520-AWI-SMS Document 239 Filed 05/01/14 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-

A

ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION

Defendants having shown good cause for the extension of time to file their reply to 

plaintiffs’ opposition to the motion for summary judgment/summary adjudication, this Court 

grants Defendants’ ex parte application and orders Defendants’ reply to be filed and served on or 

before May 9, 2014.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 30, 2014 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00520-AWI-SMS Document 239 Filed 05/01/14 Page 3 of 3