Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04813/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04813-2/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAVAUGHAN MOORE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

EDWIN WILSON, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C-06-4813 MMC

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE

APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF

DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO MOTION

TO DISMISS

(Docket No. 11)

Before the Court is plaintiff’s ex parte application for an extension of the deadline to

respond to defendant’s motion to dismiss, and defendants’ opposition thereto. Plaintiff

states that she did not receive the motion to dismiss until September 18, 2006 because she

“had to move to Henderson, Nevada,” and, additionally, implies she had not anticipated the

filing of defendants’ motion because she had not yet served defendants with the “refiled

complaint.” (See Motion at 2.) Plaintiff has violated Civil Local Rule 3-11, however, by

failing to “promptly file with the Court and serve upon all opposing parties a Notice of

Change of Address specifying the new address.” See Civil L.R. 3-11(a). Indeed, even in

her instant motion, plaintiff continues to list the same San Francisco address as she listed

in her complaint, which is the address to which defendants mailed a copy of their motion to

dismiss. Plaintiff’s failure to provide the Court or the defendants with her current address

does not constitute good cause for an extension of time for plaintiff to respond to

defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Case 3:06-cv-04813-MMC Document 13 Filed 09/26/06 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

In any event, as set forth in the Court’s separate order, filed concurrently herewith

and granting defendants’ motion to dismiss, plaintiff may not refile a complaint that was

previously dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b). As plaintiff cannot set forth an arguable

ground for denying the motion to dismiss, her request for additional time to file an

opposition is futile.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, plaintiff’s ex parte request for an

extension of time to file an opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 26, 2006 MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-04813-MMC Document 13 Filed 09/26/06 Page 2 of 2