Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01703/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01703-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joseph Helm
Plaintiff
Jay Negus
Defendant
United States Postal Service
Defendant
United States of America
Defendant

Document Text:

Ex Parte Application For Extension Of Time To Respond 

To Complaint; Ernce Declaration; Order 1

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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JOSEPH HELM, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 2:11-cv-01703 MCE EFB 

EX PARTE APPLICATION 

FOR AN ORDER EXTENDING 

THE TIME FOR DEFENDANTS 

TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT; 

DECLARATION OF LYNN TRINKA 

ERNCE; ORDER 

The United States of America respectfully requests that the Court enter an order granting 

defendants a 60-day extension of time to respond to plaintiff’s complaint. In support of this ex parte 

application, the United States respectfully represents as follows: 

1. Plaintiff filed his complaint for damages against the United States Postal Service (“USPS”) 

and USPS employee Jay Negus, on June 23, 2011. Docket 1. Plaintiff’s claims relate to a motor vehicle 

accident that occurred on June 24, 2009. 

2. On January 23, 2012, the Court issued an order to show cause in writing why the case 

should not be dismissed and ordered plaintiff to respond within ten days. Docket 6. 

3. On February 2, 2012, plaintiff filed a response to the order to show cause. Dockets 7, 8. 

In his response, plaintiff disclosed that, in addition to his claim against the defendants in this case: 

• Plaintiff had sued defendant Negus in state court for damages related to the June 24, 2009 

accident and reached a settlement which purports to preserve plaintiff’s claims against 

Negus and the USPS in federal court; 

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER

United States Attorney 

LYNN TRINKA ERNCE 

Assistant United States Attorney 

501 I Street, Suite 10-100 

Sacramento, California 95814 

Telephone: (916) 554-2720 

Attorneys for United States of America 

Case 2:11-cv-01703-MCE-EFB Document 14 Filed 04/23/12 Page 1 of 7
Ex Parte Application For Extension Of Time To Respond 

To Complaint; Ernce Declaration; Order 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 

• There is a pending criminal case against defendant Negus in state court related 

to the June 24, 2009 accident; 

• Plaintiff also sued the owner of the property that plaintiff allegedly drove onto on 

June 24, 2009, when he veered onto the property to avoid a collision, because the 

landowner applied a substance to the road and shoulder that caused plaintiff to be 

unable to slow his vehicle; 

• Plaintiff obtained a default judgment against the landowner which was set aside in 

December 2011, and the set-aside order is presently on appeal; and 

• The landowner filed a cross-complaint against Negus and USPS in state court. 

4. On February 24, 2012, the Court ordered parties to file a joint status report by no later than 

March 23, 2012. Docket 9. 

5. On March 2, 2012, plaintiff filed a return of service which states, among other things, that 

he served defendant Negus with the summons and complaint on February 19, 2012, and the United States 

Attorney for defendant USPS on February 22, 2012. Docket 10. The docket indicates that defendants 

Negus’ and USPS’ responses to the complaint are due on April 19, 2012 and April 23, 2012, respectively. 

6. On March 2, 2012, the undersigned Assistant United States Attorney (“AUSA”) was 

assigned to handle the defense of this litigation. Declaration of Lynn Trinka Ernce (“Ernce Decl., ¶ 2). 

That same day, she called plaintiff’s attorney to introduce herself and to speak about the case. Id. During 

the call, plaintiff’s attorney offered to provide copies of all of the state court documents the following 

week. Id. 

7. On March 8, 2012, plaintiff’s counsel faxed a copy of the state court cross-complaint to 

the AUSA. Ernce Decl., ¶ 3. However, since no other state court case documents were received from 

plaintiff, the AUSA requested in writing copies of the case files for the original lawsuit filed by plaintiff 

against defendant Negus and also for the lawsuit against the landowner in which the landowner filed a 

cross-complaint. Id. 

8. On March 23, 2012, plaintiff and the United States filed a joint status report. Docket 11. 

In the joint status report, plaintiff stated that he had disclosed informally many documents to the defense 

through the tort claims process and that he would make all formal disclosures by March 23, 2012. Id. 

9. In the joint status report, the United States stated that its investigation was ongoing and 

that it might need an extension of time beyond April 23, 2012 to respond to the complaint so that it could 

Case 2:11-cv-01703-MCE-EFB Document 14 Filed 04/23/12 Page 2 of 7
Ex Parte Application For Extension Of Time To Respond 

To Complaint; Ernce Declaration; Order 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 

complete its investigation of matters related to the June 24, 2009 accident. Docket 11 at 2. Among other 

issues, the United States explained that it had not yet certified that the defendants were acting in the scope 

of employment at the time of the accident, it was still investigating the landowner lawsuit and had not 

determined whether it would remove that case to federal court, and that the United States had not yet 

determined if it would answer the complaint or move to dismiss. Id. It also took no position regarding 

whether the Court has jurisdiction over this action. Id. at 3. 

10. As of the date of this application, the AUSA has not yet received the state court documents 

she requested from the San Joaquin Superior Court. Ernce Decl., ¶ 4. 

11. The AUSA also has not yet received the administrative claim files from the USPS. Id., ¶ 5. 

The USPS agency counsel assigned to this case is on medical leave and is unavailable to assist the AUSA. 

Id. USPS agency counsel’s return-to-work date is uncertain at this time. The AUSA is informed and 

believes that USPS agency counsel will be on leave at least through late April/early May. Id.

12. Recognizing that it would not be possible to respond to the complaint by April 23, 2012 

given the lack of information and agency counsel’s unavailability, on April 10, 2012, the AUSA e-mailed 

plaintiff’s counsel to request the courtesy of a 60-day extension. Id., ¶ 6. She explained that the 

extension was necessary the United States needs additional time to investigate the facts and allegations 

and all of the related actions and issues before it can determine the appropriate response to the complaint. 

Id. She explained that she had not yet been able to obtain the state court pleadings from the superior 

court or the settlement agreement between plaintiff and defendant Negus in the original state court 

action. Id. Additionally, she told plaintiff’s counsel that the USPS agency counsel assigned to this case 

is unavailable to assist with the case until at least late April/early May because of medical leave. Id. She 

explained that she was requesting 60 days because agency counsel’s return-to-work date is unknown. Id.

13. On April 11, 2012, plaintiff’s counsel responded that he was not authorized to agree to a 

60-day extension and suggested, among other things, that the United States file an answer to preserve its 

defenses. Id., ¶ 7. 

14. That same day, the AUSA responded that, with agency counsel unavailable, the United 

States is not in a position to get any response on file by April 23, 2012 in any event. Id., ¶ 8. She asked 

that plaintiff agree to a 45-day extension instead. Id.

Case 2:11-cv-01703-MCE-EFB Document 14 Filed 04/23/12 Page 3 of 7
Ex Parte Application For Extension Of Time To Respond 

To Complaint; Ernce Declaration; Order 4

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 

15. On April 12, 2012, plaintiff’s attorney informed the AUSA that plaintiff refused to grant 

the United States any extension of time to respond to the complaint. Id., ¶ 9. 

16. In light of plaintiff’s refusal to grant the courtesy of any extension to the United States, 

the AUSA informed plaintiff’s attorney on April 12, 2012 that she would seek leave of court for a 60-day 

extension of time in which to respond to the complaint. Id., ¶ 10. 

17. Plaintiff’s counsel provided the AUSA with a copy of the settlement documents from 

plaintiff’s original lawsuit against defendant Negus on April 12, 2012. Id., ¶ 11. Besides the settlement 

documents and the cross-complaint, the AUSA has not received any other documents from plaintiff to 

date. Id.

18. On April 13, 2012, the Court entered a minute order requiring the parties to file a further 

joint status report by no later than May 23, 2012. Docket 12. 

ARGUMENT

The Court Should Extend The Time For Defendants To Respond To The Complaint

Under Local Rule 144(c), the Court may, in its discretion, grant an ex parte request for extension 

of time to respond to a complaint “upon the affidavit of counsel that a stipulation extending time cannot 

reasonably be obtained, explaining the reasons why such a stipulation cannot be obtained, and the reasons 

why an extension is necessary.” As set forth above, the requirements for ex parte relief are met here. 

This is not an ordinary auto accident case. In addition to this lawsuit, there are at least three other 

actions related to the June 24, 2009 incident: plaintiff’s original lawsuit against defendant Negus which 

the parties settled and purported to carve out from the settlement plaintiff’s claims against the United 

States; plaintiff’s lawsuit against the landowner and a related cross-action and appeal; and a criminal 

proceeding against defendant Negus. 

There are multiple issues that the United States must investigate and analyze before it can 

determine how to respond to plaintiff’s complaint including, but not limited to, whether to certify scope 

of employment for the defendants; the effect, if any, of the settlement and purported carve-out of claims 

against the United States; whether additional parties need to be added to this litigation; and whether to 

remove the state court cross-action to this Court. The United States’ investigation has been hampered to 

date by the inability to gather necessary documents and information about these matters. Additionally, 

Case 2:11-cv-01703-MCE-EFB Document 14 Filed 04/23/12 Page 4 of 7
Ex Parte Application For Extension Of Time To Respond 

To Complaint; Ernce Declaration; Order 5

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 

the AUSA handling this case has not yet received the files from the administrative tort claims process, 

and the USPS agency counsel assigned to this case is unavailable to assist with the case because she 

is on medical leave for an unspecified period of time. 

Under these circumstances, the United States will not be in a position to file any response to the 

complaint by the current April 23, 2012 deadline, and it requests a 60-day extension of time to respond. 

Since one issue that the United States is investigating relates to certification of scope of employment of 

defendant Negus, the United States believes that defendant Negus should likewise receive a 60-day 

extension to respond. If the United States determines through its investigation that it will certify that 

defendant Negus was acting in the scope of his federal employment at the time of the June 24, 2009 

incident, then the United States will substitute itself in as defendant in the place of defendant Negus and 

he will not need to respond to the complaint. Thus, it makes sense for the Court to extend the response 

deadline for both defendants to the same date, and the United States requests that the Court do so. 

A stipulation extending time cannot be reasonably obtained because plaintiff has refused to agree 

to any extension of time to respond to the complaint. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, the United States respectfully requests that the Court extend the 

time for both of the defendants to respond to plaintiff’s complaint to June 22, 2012. 

DATED: April 13, 2012 BENJAMIN B. WAGNER 

 United States Attorney 

 By: /s/ Lynn Trinka Ernce 

 LYNN TRINKA ERNCE 

 Assistant United States Attorney 

DECLARATION OF LYNN TRINKA ERNCE

I, Lynn Trinka Ernce, declare as follows: 

1. I am an Assistant United States Attorney and have been assigned to handle the defense of 

this litigation. I make this declaration in support of the ex parte application for an order extending the 

time for defendants to respond to plaintiff’s complaint. Except for matters stated on information and 

belief, I have personal knowledge of the facts stated in this declaration and, if called as a witness, I could 

and would testify competently to these facts. 

Case 2:11-cv-01703-MCE-EFB Document 14 Filed 04/23/12 Page 5 of 7
Ex Parte Application For Extension Of Time To Respond 

To Complaint; Ernce Declaration; Order 6

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. On March 2, 2012, I was assigned to defend this case. That same day, I called plaintiff’s 

attorney, Russell Robinson, to introduce myself and to speak with him about the case. During the call, 

Mr. Robinson offered to provide copies of all of the state court documents the following week. 

3. On March 8, 2012, plaintiff’s counsel faxed me a copy of the state court cross-complaint. 

However, since no other state court case documents were received from plaintiff, I requested in writing 

copies of the case files for the original lawsuit filed by plaintiff against defendant Negus and also for the 

lawsuit against the landowner in which the landowner filed a cross-complaint. 

4. As of April 13, 2012, I have not received the state court documents I requested from the 

San Joaquin Superior Court. 

5. I also have not received the administrative claim files from the USPS. The USPS agency 

counsel assigned to this case is on medical leave and is unavailable to assist me at this time. USPS 

agency counsel’s return-to-work date is uncertain at this time. I am informed and believe that USPS 

agency counsel will be on leave at least through late April/early May. 

6. On April 10, 2012, I e-mailed Mr. Robinson to request the courtesy of a 60-day extension. 

I explained that the extension was necessary the United States needs additional time to investigate the 

facts and allegations and all of the related actions and issues before it can determine the appropriate 

response to the complaint. I explained that I had not yet been able to obtain the state court pleadings from 

the superior court or the settlement agreement between plaintiff and defendant Negus in the original state 

court action. Additionally, I told Mr. Robinson that the USPS agency counsel assigned to this case 

is unavailable to assist with the case until at least late April/early May because of medical leave. I told 

Mr. Robinson that I was requesting 60 days because agency counsel’s return-to-work date is unknown. 

7. On April 11, 2012, Mr. Robinson responded that he was not authorized to agree to a 

60-day extension and he suggested, among other things, that the United States file an answer to preserve 

its defenses. 

8. That same day, I responded to Mr. Robinson that, with agency counsel unavailable, the 

United States is not in a position to get any response on file by April 23, 2012 in any event. I asked that 

plaintiff agree to a 45-day extension instead. 

Case 2:11-cv-01703-MCE-EFB Document 14 Filed 04/23/12 Page 6 of 7
Ex Parte Application For Extension Of Time To Respond 

To Complaint; Ernce Declaration; Order 7

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 

9. On April 12, 2012, Mr. Robinson told me that plaintiff refused to grant the United States 

any extension of time to respond to the complaint. 

10. In light of plaintiff’s refusal to grant the courtesy of any extension to the United States, I 

told Mr. Robinson on April 12, 2012 that I would seek leave of court for a 60-day extension of time in 

which to respond to the complaint. 

11. I received from Mr. Robinson on April 12, 2012, a copy of the settlement documents from 

plaintiff’s original lawsuit against defendant Negus. Besides the settlement documents and the crosscomplaint, I have not received any other documents from plaintiff to date. 

12. A stipulation extending time cannot be reasonably obtained because plaintiff has refused to 

agree to any extension of time to respond to the complaint. 

Executed this 13th day of April, 2012, in Sacramento, California. 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 

 /s/ Lynn Trinka Ernce 

 LYNN TRINKA ERNCE 

ORDER

Based on the United States’ ex parte application and accompanying declaration, and good cause 

appearing therefore, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the application is granted; 

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that defendants shall have until June 22, 2012 to respond 

to plaintiff’s complaint. 

DATED: April 20, 2012 

 for Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. 

 

Case 2:11-cv-01703-MCE-EFB Document 14 Filed 04/23/12 Page 7 of 7