Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00693/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00693-10/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bank of America, N.A.
Defendant
Philip Koenig
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Philip A. Koenig (“Plaintiff”), is proceeding pro se, in this mortgage-related case 

brought against Defendant Bank of America, N.A. (“Defendant”). Plaintiff brings three motions 

for the Court’s consideration stemming from the Court’s prior Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion 

for Leave to Add New Parties and Claims to his complaint. (Doc. 54). After denying Plaintiff’s 

PHILIP KOENIG,

Plaintiff,

v.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:13-cv-0693-AWI-BAM 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR LEAVE FILE A FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

(Doc. 57)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO OBJECT TO 

MAGISTRATE’S ORDERS 

(Doc. 58)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS 

OBJECTIONS. 

(Doc. 62). 

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Case 1:13-cv-00693-AWI-BAM Document 64 Filed 03/06/15 Page 1 of 3
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

Motion for Leave, the Court ORDERED Plaintiff to file his First Amended Complaint on or 

before January 9, 2015. 

In the instant Motions, Plaintiff requests leave to file objections to this Court’s December 

10, 2014 Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion to add new claims and parties and permission to file 

his First Amended Complaint following a ruling on Plaintiff’s objections. (Docs. 56, 57).1For 

the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to file objections is DENIED and 

Plaintiff will have until April 8, 2015 to file an amended complaint which complies with the 

Court’s previous order on dismissal. (Docs. 24, 54). 

A party may serve and file objections to a Magistrate Judge’s non-dispositive pretrial 

order within 14 days after being served with a copy. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Plaintiff was served 

by mail with the order denying his motion for leave to amend on December 10, 2014, and any 

objections were due on or before December 28, 2014. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time, 

signed on January 9, 2015, is late, and Plaintiff has not explained why he was unable to request an 

extension of time before the deadline to file his objections. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1). Plaintiff’s 

report that he intended to file his motion for leave with his earlier objections, filed on January 5, 

2015 does not establish excusable neglect for the late request. Plaintiff’s strep throat also does 

not constitute good cause for why Plaintiff could not request an extension of time to file his 

objections. Plaintiff is familiar with the simple process of requesting a timely extension of time. 

Indeed, Plaintiff’s instant Motion for leave is a fourth attempt to obtain additional time to respond 

to a Court order. Plaintiff’s delay in this case has been ongoing and Plaintiff was previously 

warned that the Court would not grant a further request for an extension of time unless good 

cause is shown. 

Plaintiff has not shown good cause to allow the late filed objections, but in an effort to be 

particularly sensitive to the challenges faced by pro se litigants, the Court will grant a final 

extension of time for Plaintiff to file his First Amended Complaint. The First Amended 

///

 

1

Presumably in an effort to clarify the docket, on January 26, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Withdraw his

initial objections, filed on January 5, 2015 (Doc. 62), to the Magistrate Judge’s Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Leave to Amend his Complaint. 

Case 1:13-cv-00693-AWI-BAM Document 64 Filed 03/06/15 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Complaint must be consistent with the Court’s December 23, 2013 Order granting Plaintiff leave 

to amend his second and third causes of action, only. (Doc. 24). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for an Extension of time to file the First Amended Complaint is 

GRANTED. (Doc. 57). Plaintiff shall file his First Amended Complaint, 

amending his second and third causes of action, only, on or before April 8, 2015;

no further extensions will be granted; 

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Objections to the Magistrate’s Order Denying 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Add New Defendants, Factual Allegations and 

Causes of Action is DENIED; 

3. Plaintiff’s Motion to Withdraw Plaintiff’s Objections to the Magistrate’s Order 

Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Add New Defendants, Factual Allegations 

and Causes of Action (Doc. 56) is GRANTED. (Doc. 62). 

4. Failure to comply with this Order will result in a recommendation of dismissal of 

this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 6, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00693-AWI-BAM Document 64 Filed 03/06/15 Page 3 of 3