Tenwinkle
Tenwinkle v. Richardsons Bay Regional Agency
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 LOUIS JOSEPH TENWINKLE, Case No. 21-cv-09081-JSW
Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
v. DISMISS, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND,
AND SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT
RICHARDSONS BAY REGIONAL CONFERENCE AGENCY, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 17 11 Defendants.
12 Now before the Court for consideration is the motion to dismiss filed by Richardson’s Bay Regional Agency (“RBRA”) and Harbormaster Curtis Havel (“Havel”) (collectively “Defendants”). That motion has been pending since April 4, 2022, and the Court has granted Plaintiff two extensions of time to respond to the motion. (See Dkt. Nos. 30, 33.) On July 12, 2022, Plaintiff filed a “preliminary response” (“Response”) to the motion, in which he asks the Court for an additional 120 days to conduct discovery “so that he can adequately answer defendants’ Rule 26(b) motion.” (Dkt. No. 34, Response at 1:24-25.) Defendants have filed their reply, and the matter is ripe for disposition. The Court concludes the…