Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01058/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01058-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ST VENTURES, LLC, a Utah

Corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

KBA ASSETS AND ACQUISITIONS,

LLC, a Nevada Corporation; BEN

PENFIELD, an individual; ASSET

PLACEMENT LIMITED a UK

Corporation; SUSAN GEORGINA

GILLIS, an individual; PAUL

WINDWOOD, an individual, BANK

OF AMERICA, N.A., a national

banking association and DOES 1

through 50,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-1058 LJO SMS

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR 

AN EXTENSION OF TIME IN WHICH TO 

FILE A MOTION TO AMEND THE 

COMPLAINT

(Doc. 77)

On December 4, 2013, the parties participated in an off-the-record telephonic conference,

memorialized in an order dated December 6. Docs. 72, 73. As relevant here, the order stated: 

“Plaintiff intends to move to amend the complaint, including by naming new defendants. The Court 

ORDERS Plaintiff to do so by December 30, 2013.” The minute order stated likewise. Id.

On December 30, 2013, Plaintiff moved for an extension of time through January 29, 2014. 

This is styled as a motion for extension “of time to file an amended complaint.” The extension is

sought because “Plaintiff’s Counsel is engaged in active negotiations with defense counsel for 

Defendants KBA Assets and Acquisitions and Ben Penfield wherein Defense counsel has indicated 

a desire on the part of KBA and Penfield to resolve the matter in a cooperative effort so as to return 

Case 1:12-cv-01058-LJO-SMS Document 79 Filed 01/09/14 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

Plaintiff’s property to them;” the new date of January 29, 2014 is requested “in the event the matter 

does not settle.” It is explained that “Defense Counsel does not oppose the motion for an 

enlargement of time as requested but was unable to consent to the motion without consulting with 

his client and has not yet provided the consent as requested.”

On January 6, 2014, Defendant opposed this motion. Defendant’s counsel’s declaration was 

not necessarily inconsistent with Plaintiff’s representations, but added that “My client(s) does not 

agree to an extension of time for the filing of an amended complaint or the request to do so.”

Because Plaintiff has misapprehended the nature of the document that the Court is 

expecting, the Court will grant one extension, through February 7, 2014. To clarify, if Plaintiff 

wishes to amend the complaint, Plaintiff must first file a motion to amend. See FRCP 15 (if more 

than 21 days after service, amendment requires “the opposing party's written consent or the court’s 

leave”). Although courts should freely give leave when justice requires, a variety of reasons may be 

sufficient to deny leave to amend. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962) (citing four basic 

factors: bad faith; undue delay; prejudice to the opposing party; and futility of amendment). The 

Court also understands that Plaintiff desires to bring in additional parties, and so observes that 

amendments seeking to add claims are granted more freely than amendments seeking to add new 

parties. Union Pac. R. v. Nev. Power Co., 950 F.2d 1429, 1432 (9th Cir. 1991). To anticipate only 

one of the possible issues that may arise from bringing in new parties, the existing Defendants may 

desire to bring back into the case those defendants whom Plaintiffs recently dismissed after coming 

to a settlement. Among other issues, this could upset the waivers of privilege that Dollinger entered 

into with his former clients.

Separately, the Court notes that Plaintiff has also misapprehended the Court’s request for a 

“notice of settlement.” Technically, by disclosing the settlement in July and then filing a motion to 

dismiss in December, Plaintiff has complied with the literal requirements of EDCA Local Rule 160 

regarding settlements. In this case, however, the Court’s purpose was to obtain some additional 

verification of the grounds upon which the Court granted the change of counsel and the dismissal of 

Defendants—these being the statements that Gillis and Windwood had previously been represented 

Case 1:12-cv-01058-LJO-SMS Document 79 Filed 01/09/14 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

by Dollinger, that these defendants entered into written privilege waivers, and that they at some 

point entered into a settlement with Plaintiffs. Doc. 55.

Therefore, by Wednesday, January 22, 2014, Attorney Dollinger shall file appropriate 

documentation of these three issues. If necessary to protect privileged material, the filings may be 

made under seal (FRCP 5.2, LR 141). In addition, Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file 

a motion for leave of court to file an amended complaint is GRANTED with a deadline of February 

7, 2014.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 9, 2014 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

icido34h

Case 1:12-cv-01058-LJO-SMS Document 79 Filed 01/09/14 Page 3 of 3