Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04706/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04706-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
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

DR. RALPH S. BEREN, ED.D.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF CALIFORNIA

STATE UNIVERSITY, et al.,

Defendants

 /

No. C-06-4706 MMC

ORDER DENYING LETTER REQUEST

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

By order filed June 11, 2007, the Court dismissed each of the eight causes of action

alleged in plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, and afforded plaintiff leave to file, no later

than June 29, 2007, a Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”). In so doing, the Court stated as

follows: “Leave to amend is provided solely to afford plaintiff leave to set forth the factual

basis for the legal claims set forth in the First, Third, and Fourth Causes of Action. If

plaintiff seeks to amend for any other purpose, plaintiff must file a motion to amend,

pursuant to Rule 15(a).” (See Order, filed June 11, 2007, at 4:23 - 5:1.)

The Court is in receipt of a letter, filed June 25, 2007, in which plaintiff requests a

two-week extension of time to file a TAC, for the stated reason plaintiff is “waiting for an

amended Right to Sue Letter from DFEH,” which he expects to receive in the next two

weeks; plaintiff states he “would like to include the filing and the grant of the amended right

Case 3:06-cv-04706-MMC Document 86 Filed 06/28/07 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

1

The Court ordinarily does not act on letter requests. Counsel shall submit any

future requests for relief by motion filed in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and the Civil Local Rules of this district. See, e.g., Civil L.R. 6–3 (providing

party may file “motion to change time”).

2

As noted, the Court stated plaintiff must file a motion for leave to amend if he

sought to amend for any reason other than to set forth the factual basis for his federal

claims. In that respect, defendants argue, an amendment alleging exhaustion of state

administrative remedies in 2007 would be futile because the conduct at issue occurred in

2005. See Cal. Gov’t Code § 12960(d) (providing, subject to specified exceptions,

administrative claim must be filed within one year of “alleged unlawful practice”). If plaintiff

files a motion seeking leave to amend to allege he has exhausted his state administrative

remedies, plaintiff must, inter alia, set forth why such amendment would not be futile in light

of § 12960(d).

2

to sue in the new Complaint.”1 Defendants Board of Trustees of California State University

and Nathan Avani have filed opposition to plaintiff’s request.

As defendants point out, the reason given for plaintiff’s request for an extension of

time has no relation to the First, Third, and Fourth Causes of Action, each of which is a

federal claim for which no exhaustion is required. An amendment stating that plaintiff has

exhausted his administrative remedies would pertain solely to one or more of plaintiff’s

state law claims, and the Court did not afford plaintiff leave to amend any of his state law

claims.2

Accordingly, plaintiff’s letter request for an extension of time to file a TAC is hereby

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 28, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-04706-MMC Document 86 Filed 06/28/07 Page 2 of 2