Raiser v. San Diego County

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: September 13, 2019
• Docket: 3:19-cv-00751
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AARON RAISER, Case No.: 19-cv-0751-GPC-KSC

12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. (1) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 14 SAN DIEGO COUNTY ET AL., MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF 15 Defendant. TIME TO FILE RESPONSE [ECF No. 17]; 16 17 (2) SETTING AMENDED BRIEFING

SCHEDULE [ECF No. 12.] 18

19 20 21 22 On June 28, 2019, Defendant County of San Diego (“Defendant”) filed a motion to 23 dismiss Plaintiff Aaron Raiser’s complaint (“Plaintiff”). ECF No. 7. On July 9, 2019, 24 Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), which rendered Defendant’s motion 25 to dismiss moot. ECF No. 9. On July 24, 2019, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss 26 Plaintiff’s FAC. ECF No. 12. This motion was noticed for hearing on October 25, 2019, 27 at 1:30PM, the hearing date previously assigned to Defendant’s motion to dismiss the 28 original complaint. ECF No. 14. Pursuant to the briefing schedule, Plaintiff’s response to 1 || Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff's FAC was ordered due on September 17. ECF 2 14. Defendant now moves the court for a two-week extension. ECF No. 17. 3 As the Ninth Circuit has recognized, pro se defendants should be treated with 4 || “great leniency” with respect to the rules of civil procedure and motions practice. See 5 || Draper v. Coombs, 792 F.2d 915, 924 (9th Cir. 1986); see also Wall Mountain Co. v. 6 || Edwards, No. C 08-2579 PVT, 2010 WL 1879805, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 10, 2010); 7 || Schroeder v. Hundley, No. 17CV919-JLS (JIMA), 2017 WL 6945405, at *3 (S.D. Cal. 8 ||Sept. 13, 2017). Courts must balance that leniency with the potential prejudice to 9 || defendants. See Richards v. Cty. of Los Angeles, No. CV1700400BROAGRX, 2017 WL 10 7410986, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2017) (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 11 (1962) and Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003)). 12 Here, Plaintiff's request is reasonable and shows good cause. See CivLR 12.1. 13 || Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, notes that he is “inundated with other court cases with 14 || deadlines at or near September 20, 2019” and requires additional time to prepare his 15 || opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss. ECF No. 17 at 1-2. In addition, Plaintiff 16 asserts that no prejudice will result to Defendants as the hearing date will not change. 17 || ECF No. 17 at 2. Consequently, the Court VACATES the current hearing schedule, ECF 18 || No. 14, and GRANTS defendant’s motion. ECF No. 17. 19 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 20 1. Defendant’s motion to dismiss the FAC is set for hearing on October 25, 2019, at 21 1:30PM in Courtroom 2D, the date previously assigned. 22 2. An opposition to this motion is now due October 4, 2019. 23 3. Any reply is now due October 11, 2019. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 ||Dated: September 13, 2019 2 26 Hon. athe Coke 27 United States District Judge 28