DePonte

DePonte v. Bierman

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMarch 18, 20243:23-cv-03813California421 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DAVID ARTHUR DEPONTE, Case No. 23-cv-03813-LJC

8 Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF

9 v. EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

10 MIRNA BIERMAN, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 38, 39 Defendants. 11

12 13 On February 9, 2024, the Court dismissed plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint and 14 granted him leave to file a Second Amended Complaint by March 8, 2024. ECF 35. On March 1, 15 plaintiff filed a “Motion for Permissive Joinder” describing retaliation that he has experienced 16 since filing his lawsuit. ECF 38. On March 6, plaintiff filed a “Motion for Leave to File an 17 Amended Complaint.” ECF 39. The Court construes plaintiff’s March 6 motion as a request for 18 an extension of time to file his Second Amended Complaint and grants the motion. 19 Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint is due by April 15, 2024, and must include the 20 caption and civil case number used in this order, 23-cv-03813-LJC, and the words “SECOND 21 AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. …

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.