Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-01420/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-01420-18/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

1

The deadline is set forth in the Civil Minutes filed May 28, 2010.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANK FAHY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ORPHEOS TARBOX, et al.,

Defendants /

No. C-09-1420 MMC

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

ORDER TO ENLARGE TIME FOR

AMENDING COMPLAINT

Before the Court is plaintiff Frank Fahy’s “Motion for Order to Enlarge Time for

Amending Complaint,” filed July 30, 2010, by which motion plaintiff seeks an extension of

the August 2, 2010 deadline to file a motion to amend the pleadings.1

 Defendants have not

filed a response. Having read and considered the motion, the Court hereby rules as

follows.

A scheduling order, such as an order setting a deadline to file a motion to amend,

may be modified only upon a showing of “good cause” by the party seeking the

modification. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily

considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). A “district court may modify the

pretrial schedule if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking

Case 3:09-cv-01420-MMC Document 133 Filed 08/10/10 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

2

the extension.” Id. (internal quotation and citation omitted). 

In his motion, plaintiff asserts he needs further time to determine whether grounds to

amend may exist. Plaintiff does not indicate the nature of any proposed amendment,

however. In the absence of a showing as to the nature of the proposed amendment, the

Court cannot determine whether plaintiff has been diligent. Cf. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609

(affirming district court’s finding plaintiff had not been diligent in seeking leave to amend,

where plaintiff was aware of basis for proposed new claim before deadline to amend had

passed).

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for an enlargement of time is hereby DENIED without

prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 10, 2010 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-01420-MMC Document 133 Filed 08/10/10 Page 2 of 2