Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_20-cv-02082/USCOURTS-cand-3_20-cv-02082-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange 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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VINTON FROST,

Plaintiff,

v.

WESTIN HOTELS MANAGEMENT LP, et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-06545-WHO 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME FOR 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Re: Dkt. No. 19

In my order denying reconsideration of Vinton Frost’s request for stay on April 2, 2020, I 

emphasized that Frost’s deadline to file an amended complaint is extended for the absolute last 

time to April 20, 2020. Dkt. No. 18. Frost now asks that I extend his deadline again to May 15, 

2020 given the modified court operations this month would impact his need for “open access and 

clerical attention.” Dkt. No. 19. He also takes issue with the fact that my previous order does not 

mention his pending appeal in another case, and characterizes this as a “misrepresentation of the 

record.” He submits his Second Amended Complaint in Case No. 19-cv- 5365-JD, which was 

dismissed with prejudice on March 6, 2020 because he failed to explain how the case was different 

from previously dismissed cases. 

It is unclear what relevance the Second Amended Complaint in that case has on the 

amended complaint he must file in this case in order to proceed. If Frost chooses to move forward 

this case, he must file an amended complaint that addresses the deficiencies listed in Magistrate 

Judge Kandis A. Westmore’s Report and Recommendation. See Dkt. No. 6.

Frost’s motion for extension is DENIED. Modified court operations do not affect Frost’s 

ability to allege facts in an amended complaint and to file it by mail if need be. I entered an order 

on December 16, 2020, adopting Magistrate Judge Westmore’s Report and Recommendation a 

Case 3:20-cv-02082-WHO Document 14 Filed 04/08/20 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

month earlier that explained clearly why his allegations are frivolous; they address incidents 

barred by the statute of limitation. But I allowed Frost to file an amended complaint instead of 

dismissing his complaint with prejudice. Instead of amending the complaint, since that time Frost

has filed a motion to continue, a motion to stay, a motion for reconsideration, and now this request 

for extension. Enough is enough. Failure to file an amended complaint by April 20, 2020 will 

lead to dismissal of this case for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 7, 2020

William H. Orrick

United States District Judge

Case 3:20-cv-02082-WHO Document 14 Filed 04/08/20 Page 2 of 2