Hammett v. Sherman ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LAURA LYNN HAMMETT, Case No.: 19-CV-605 JLS (LL) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER (1) GRANTING THE 13 v. SHERMAN DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN 14 MARY E. SHERMAN, et al., EXTENSION OF TIME TO 15 Defendants. RESPOND TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND (2) EXTENDING 16 DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO 17 PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 18 19 (ECF No. 147) 20 21 Presently before the Court is the Ex Parte Application for an Extension of Time to 22 Respond to Second Amended Complaint (“Ex Parte App.,” ECF No. 147) filed by 23 Defendants Mary Sherman and Jeffrey Sherman in all their named capacities (the 24 “Sherman Defendants”), as well as Plaintiff Laura Lynn Hammett’s Opposition (“Opp’n,” 25 ECF No. 149). The Sherman Defendants seek a three-week extension of time to respond 26 to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, see Ex Parte App. at 1, which “is 71 pages (not 27 including exhibits) and contains 455 paragraphs and 15 claims for relief.” See id. at 2; see 28 also ECF No. 145. 1 Plaintiff opposes the Sherman Defendants’ request on both procedural grounds and 2 substantively. First, Plaintiff contends that the Sherman Defendants failed to include 3 Defendants Ellis Roy Stern; Alan N. Goldberg; Stern & Goldberg; Patrick C. McGarrigle; 4 and McGarrigle, Kenney & Zampiello (the “Attorney Defendants”) in the email regarding 5 the Ex Parte Application. Opp’n at 2–3. The Attorney Defendants, however, were 6 voluntarily dismissed, see ECF No. 38, and were not named as defendants in the Second 7 Amended Complaint. See ECF No. 145. Accordingly, they are not currently parties to this 8 action. 9 Second, Plaintiff notes that “the motion on its face is denoted an application by only 10 the Sherman Defendants.” Opp’n at 3. That is true—the Ex Parte Application is not 11 brought as a joint motion. Accordingly, there is no violation of Civil Local Rule 7.2, which 12 applies only to stipulations and joint motions. 13 Third, Plaintiff argues that a three-week extension is inappropriate because 14 Defendants “ought to be able to complete their motions in the usual amount of time.” 15 Opp’n at 5. Plaintiff adds that “[e]very day that goes by is another day for the defendants 16 to spend, waste, transfer, invest for themselves or otherwise misuse my share of SSP 17 assets.” Id. at 4 (quoting ECF No. 149-2). In light of the three-month extension of time 18 the Court granted Plaintiff to file her Second Amended Complaint, see ECF No. 132, the 19 Court concludes that the three-week extension requested by the Sherman Defendants is 20 reasonable and appropriate. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Sherman Defendants’ 21 Ex Parte Application. 22 “A district court has inherent power to control the disposition of cases on its docket 23 with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Santos v. Baca, 24 No. 2:11-cv-01251-KJD-NJK, 2016 WL 11653077, at *1 (D. Nev. July 29, 2016) (quoting 25 United States v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for N. Mariana Islands, 694 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th Cir. 2012) 26 (citing Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936))) (internal quotation marks omitted); 27 see also Coursen v. A.H. Robins Co., 764 F.2d 1329, 1340 (9th Cir. 1985) (“The . . . control 28 of the docket [is a] matter[] left to the discretion of the district court.”). “This broad 1 || discretion extends to setting filing deadlines.” Jd. (citing Robertson v. FedEx Nat’l. Ltl, 2 || Inc.., No. CV 09-5016 DSF (FFMx), 2010 WL 10020690, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2010)). 3 || To avoid piecemeal litigation and to coordinate Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff’ s Second 4 || Amended Complaint, all Defendants SHALL RESPOND to Plaintiff's Second Amended 5 || Complaint no later than September 11, 2020. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 g ||Dated: August 14, 2020 (een 9 on. Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28