Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02351/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02351-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LOK T. LAU,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANTONIO V. SILVA, ANTONIO V.

SILVA P.C., PATRICIA TSUBOKAWA

REEVES, AND REEVES & ASHLEY, 

Defendants.

CIV. S-04-2351 WBS PAN PS

 ORDER

—NFN—

On February 23, 2005, this court granted plaintiff’s

request to enlarge time until April 22 to respond to defendants’

motions to dismiss. The court granted the request upon the

grounds plaintiff is representing himself, is not legally trained

and is hindered by physical and psychological disabilities. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1); E. D. Cal. L. R. 78-230(c).

On April 18, plaintiff filed a second request for

enlargement of time on the grounds that his health has further

Case 2:04-cv-02351-WBS-DAD Document 19 Filed 04/26/05 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

2

declined and he has decided to seek but been unable to obtain

legal representation. 

Plaintiff has submitted an April 16, 2005, letter from

his psychiatrist, who states he has treated plaintiff, a former

FBI special agent, for four years for major depression and posttraumatic stress disorder; that plaintiff “is now so debilitated

by his psychiatric disorder that he has trouble finding his way

around the area where he lives;” that plaintiff’s attempt to

represent himself and failure to yet obtain representation

“aggravates the stress he is under and produces exacerbation of

his symptomology.”

Plaintiff has also submitted a March 8, 2005, letter from

attorney Greg Meyer, whom plaintiff states provided the only

written response declining representation out of the half dozen 

law firms contacted by plaintiff. The letter provides advice on

statutes of limitations and other sources of legal

representation.

The court again finds good cause to extend the time

within which plaintiff must respond to defendants’ motions to

dismiss. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1). The court accords plaintiff

an additional 60 days within which to respond, or by Tuesday,

June 21, 2005; defendants may file their reply briefs, if any, by

July 5. Should plaintiff fail to respond to the pending motions 

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-02351-WBS-DAD Document 19 Filed 04/26/05 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

3

on or before June 21, this court may recommend this action be

dismissed. 

So ordered.

Dated: April 26, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02351-WBS-DAD Document 19 Filed 04/26/05 Page 3 of 3