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 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel., 

STEVEN FALLON, et al., 

Plaintiffs-Relators, 

v. 

BELL TRANSIT CORP., et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 16-cv-06994-PJH 

ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

TO FILE COMPLAINT AND 

DISMISSING UNSERVED 

DEFENDANTS 

Re: Dkt. 110 

 On March 15, 2021, the court entered an order dismissing plaintiff-relator Fallon’s 

second amended complaint, with partial leave to amend. See Dkt. 109. The court gave 

Fallon 21 days to file an amended complaint in accordance with the court’s order. 

In the March 15 order, the court also noted that two defendants (MCET Affordable 

Transportation and Functional Floors) appeared not to have been served. Accordingly, 

the court entered an order to show cause as to why MCET and Functional Floors should 

not be dismissed for failure to serve under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Dkt. 

110 at 19. The court gave Fallon seven days, or until March 22, 2021, to file a written 

response to the OSC or a dismissal of those two defendants. 

Fallon did not respond, in any way, to the order to show cause. Thus, MCET and 

Functional Floors are DISMISSED from this action for failure to serve. 

On March 29, 2021, Fallon filed an administrative motion for an extension of time 

to file the third amended complaint. See Dkt. 110. Fallon argues that he “has engaged in 

multiple conversations and contacts with counsel for both defendants” regarding 

Case 4:16-cv-06994-PJH Document 112 Filed 04/05/21 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 

settlement, and has “sought information which he believes is necessary to frame a 

reasonable, good faith settlement demand on Bell Transit.” Id. at 2. However, Fallon 

argues that “Bell Transit offered only a single redacted document,” and thus, Fallon is 

now seeking the same information via a Public Records Act request from a “large public 

agency.” Id. Fallon states that he requests “an additional 15 days” to file the third 

amended complaint; but his proposed order actually seeks an extension of 24 days (or 18 

business days), from April 5 to April 29. See id. at 2, 3. 

 Simply put, Fallon’s motion is too vague to provide support for his argument that 

an extension is warranted. Fallon does not provide any specific facts about his claimed 

Public Records Act request – he does not state what information he is seeking, or from 

which agency he is seeking it, and he provides no details about when the request was 

filed or when a response is anticipated. For those reasons, Fallon’s administrative 

motion (Dkt. 110) is DENIED. Fallon must file an amended complaint, in accordance with 

the court’s previous order, by tomorrow, April 6, 2021. However, Fallon is not precluded 

from seeking further leave to amend the complaint under Rule 15(a)(2) if his Public 

Records Act request does ultimately yield new information that supports his allegations 

against Bell Transit. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 5, 2021 

 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton 

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:16-cv-06994-PJH Document 112 Filed 04/05/21 Page 2 of 2