Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01154/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01154-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
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

 On June 4, 2008 the SAC was filed pursuant to a Discrepancy Order, but not accepted as

timely filed.

- 1 - 07cv1154

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUISA C. WILDEY,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07cv1154 JM(JMA)

ORDER STRIKING SECOND

AMENDED COMPLAINT;

DENYING SHARP MEMORIAL

HOSPITAL’S MOTION TO DISMISS

AS MOOT

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

Pursuant to the court’s inherent authority to control its docket, Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe

Ry. Co. v. Hercules, 146 F.3d 1071, 1074 (9th Cir. 1998), the court strikes Plaintiff’s late filed Second

Amended Complaint (“SAC”) without prejudice subject to a showing of “excusable neglect” for her

failure to timely file the SAC. On April 2, 2008 the court dismissed Plaintiff’s First Amended

Complaint (“FAC”) on grounds that, among other things, the FAC failed to comply with Rules 8 and

10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court granted Plaintiff 30 days leave to amend to file

an amended complaint. Instead of filing the SAC by the May 5, 2008 deadline, Defendant sought to

file the SAC on June 4, 2008. The SAC was not accompanied by a motion for enlargement of time

or any other document seeking relief from the schedule established in the April 2, 2008 order.1

Rule 6(b) provides that when “an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court

Case 3:07-cv-01154-JM-JMA Document 29 Filed 08/05/08 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 - 07cv1154

may, for good cause, extend the time. . . (B) on motion made after the time has expired if the party

failed to act because of excusable neglect.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(1). As Plaintiff has failed to move to

be relieved from the May 5, 2008 filing deadline set forth in this court’s April 2, 2008, the court

strikes the SAC without prejudice. In the event Plaintiff desires to pursue her claims, Plaintiff is

instructed to file a motion establishing “excusable neglect” for her failure to timely file the SAC. Any

motion seeking relief from the May 5, 2008 filing deadline must be made within 20 days of entry of

this order. Plaintiff is cautioned that her failure to (1) timely file a motion for relief from the April

2, 2008 order and (2) to establish excusable neglect will result in the dismissal of the action without

prejudice. 

In sum, the Clerk of Court is instructed to strike the SAC from the court’s docket and to deny

as moot the pending motion to dismiss filed by Sharp Memorial Hospital. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 5, 2008

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All parties

Case 3:07-cv-01154-JM-JMA Document 29 Filed 08/05/08 Page 2 of 2