Clinton v. Allison
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court considered Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to conduct fact discovery in response to Defendants' motion to dismiss. The court construed the motion as a request for an extension of time to file an opposition to the motion to dismiss and granted it, setting a new deadline of April 18, 2025.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for enlargement of time for fact evidence/discovery construed as motion for extension of time to file opposition to motion to dismiss and granted.“Accordingly, the Court construes Plaintiff's motion for enlargement of time for fact evidence as a motion for an extension of time to file an opposition to the motion to dismiss the SAC. So construed, the Court GRANTS the motion, and gives Plaintiff until April 18, 2025, to file an opposition to the motion to dismiss the SAC.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is determined on the pleadings, making fact discovery generally unnecessary for drafting an opposition. Construing the motion as a request for an extension of time to file the opposition is a reasonable procedural interpretation that serves the interests of justice by allowing the plaintiff to respond to the pending motion to dismiss. Granting the extension is within the court's discretion. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly applies the principle that Rule 12(b)(6) motions are decided on the pleadings, thereby justifying the denial of fact discovery at this stage. The court's decision to construe the motion as a request for an extension of time to file an opposition is a practical and appropriate exercise of judicial administration to ensure the plaintiff has the opportunity to respond to the motion to dismiss. The citation to Gant v. County of Los Angeles supports the proposition that fact discovery is not required for this purpose.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARKEITH CLINTON Case No.: 3:23-cv-01471-CAB-SBC CDCR # AY-1315, 12 ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR Plaintiff, 13 ENLARGEMENT OF TIME FOR FACT vs. EVIDENCE [Doc. No. 48] 14 C. ALLEN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 On February 7, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). [Doc. 23 No. 44.] On February 24, 2025, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the SAC, with a 24 hearing date (for briefing purposed only) of April 1, 2025. [Doc. No. 47.] Pursuant to 25 ACivLR 7.1.e.2, any opposition to the motion was due on March 18, 2025. To date, no 26 opposition has been filed. 27 On March 18, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion for enlargement of time for fact 28 evidence/discovery. [Doc. No. 48.] However, motions to dismiss are determined on the 1 || pleadings, and no fact discovery is necessary for Plaintiff to file an opposition. See 2 || Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6); Gant v. Cnty of Los Angeles, 772 F.3d 608, 3 ||614. Accordingly, the Court construes Plaintiff's motion for enlargement of time for fact 4 ||evidence as a motion for an extension of time to file an opposition to the motion to 5 dismiss the SAC. So construed, the Court GRANTS the motion, and gives Plaintiff until 6 || April 18, 2025,! to file an opposition to the motion to dismiss the SAC. 7 Plaintiff is cautioned that if no opposition is filed, pursuant to ACivLR 7.1.f.3.c., 8 may constitute consent to the granting of the motion and the case may be dismissed 9 its entirety. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: March 21, 2025 € 12 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 13 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 || ———___—_—_—- 28 Defendants shall have until April 25, 2025, to file a reply to the opposition.