Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00298/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00298-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Fresno
Defendant
Corey Evans
Defendant
Cynthia Piombino
Plaintiff
Steve Rocha
Defendant

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

CYNTHIA PIOMBINO,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF FRESNO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00298-KES-SAB

ORDER RE STIPULATION TO EXTEND 

TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND 

TO COMPLAINT

(ECF No. 8) 

On March 11, 2024, Plaintiffs filed this action against Defendants City of Fresno, Fresno 

Police Officer Steve Rocha, and Fresno Police Officer Corey Evans. (ECF No. 1.) On March 

19, 2024, Plaintiff served Defendant City of Fresno only. (ECF No. 6.) The deadline for 

Defendant City of Fresno to file a responsive pleading was April 9, 2024. Plaintiff has not 

served Officer Rocha or Officer Evans.

On April 10, 2024, the parties filed a stipulation to extend the deadline for Defendant

City of Fresno to file a responsive pleading. (ECF No. 8.) The parties proffer that Defendant 

City of Fresno intends to file a motion to dismiss and the arguments the City will offer may 

apply to the individual Defendant police officers, which will lead to a duplicative subsequent 

motion. The parties therefore stipulate to extend the current due date for the City to file its 

responsive pleading from April 9, 2024 until June 24, 2024 in the interests of expending the 

parties’ and Court’s time and resources efficiently. The parties contend the extension would 

provide Plaintiff the opportunity to serve the individually named Defendant Officers. The parties 

Case 1:24-cv-00298-KES-SAB Document 9 Filed 04/10/24 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

further stipulate that, once the individually named Defendants are served, all Defendants will 

have a mutual deadline to file a responsive pleading on June 24, 2024. The parties confirm they 

are not requesting to continue the September 24, 2024 scheduling conference. 

The Court finds good cause exists to grant the requested extension. However, the Court 

refers the parties to Local Rule 144(d), which states: “Counsel shall seek to obtain a necessary 

extension from the Court or from other counsel or parties in an action as soon as the need for an 

extension becomes apparent. Requests for Court-approved extensions brought on the required 

filing date for the pleading or other document are looked upon with disfavor.” L.R. 144(d). The 

instant stipulation was filed after the City’s deadline to file a responsive pleading with no 

explanation for its untimeliness. The parties are directed to heed more attention to deadlines and 

shall provide stipulated agreements in a timely fashion.

Accordingly, pursuant to the stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing, IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED that all Defendants shall have up to and including June 24, 2024 to file 

their responsive pleadings to the complaint. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 10, 2024 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00298-KES-SAB Document 9 Filed 04/10/24 Page 2 of 2