Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-05761/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-05761-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1964 Racketeering (RICO) 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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

GREG STEVEN ELOFSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

STEPHANIE BIVENS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-05761-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT 

SCARINGELLI’S APPLICATION FOR 

EXTENSION OF DEADLINE TO FILE 

REPLY BRIEF

[Re: ECF 126]

The Court has reviewed Defendant Scaringelli’s application for a fourteen-day extension 

of time to file a reply brief in support of his motion to dismiss, ECF 126, and Plaintiff’s response 

thereto, ECF 127. While stopping short of actually opposing the application or requesting that it 

be denied, Plaintiff points out that Defendant Scaringelli is required to brief only his own motion 

to dismiss while Plaintiff is required to brief six motions to dismiss brought by six different 

defendants. The Court acknowledges the disparity of the burdens placed upon Plaintiff and 

Defendant Scaringelli with respect to the pending motions. However, that disparity does not 

constitute grounds for denying Defendant Scaringelli’s application for an extension of time where, 

as here, granting the extension will not prejudice Plaintiff or impact the Court’s ability to prepare 

for the hearing. The Court notes that it previously has granted requests of a similar nature brought 

by Plaintiff, on one occasion a request to exceed the applicable page limit and on another a request 

to extend time for service of process. See Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Exceed Applicable 

Page Limit, ECF 88; Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Time for Service of Process on 

Defendant McCullum, ECF 95.

Case 5:15-cv-05761-BLF Document 128 Filed 06/27/16 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

Accordingly, Defendant Scaringelli’s application for an extension of time is GRANTED 

and his deadline for filing a reply brief is EXTENDED to July 15, 2016. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 27, 2016

 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-05761-BLF Document 128 Filed 06/27/16 Page 2 of 2