Hani Toma, et al. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Robert Steven Huie (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a joint stipulation by the parties to allow Plaintiffs to file a First Amended Complaint and to extend the deadline for Defendants to respond. The court granted the request to extend the response deadline to June 22, 2026, noting that the amendment itself required no court leave due to Defendant's consent.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the joint motion to extend Defendant's time to respond to the First Amended Complaint“The Parties’ request to extend Defendant’s deadline to respond to the First Amended Complaint is GRANTED.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the stipulation was treated as a joint motion under Civil Local Rule 7.2(b). The extension of time is a procedural matter within the court's discretion, and granting a joint request for a reasonable extension (approx. 4 weeks from the filing date) is standard practice. The court also correctly noted that under Rule 15(a)(2), the amendment itself did not require a separate ruling because the opposing party consented. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly applies Civil Local Rule 7.2(b) to treat the stipulation as a motion. It accurately cites Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) and Ninth Circuit precedent to explain why no specific leave was needed for the amendment itself, distinguishing the amendment from the requested extension of time. The grant of the extension is a routine exercise of judicial administration.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HANI TOMA, et al., Case No.: 26-cv-2805-RSH-MSB 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER ON JOINT MOTION FOR 13 v. EXTENSION OF TIME 14 JPMORGAN CHASE BANK N.A, et al., [ECF No. 5] 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Before the Court is the Parties’ “Joint Stipulation to Permit Plaintiffs to File a First 19 Amended Complaint and Extend Defendant’s Time to Respond to the First Amended 20 Complaint.” ECF No. 5. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.2(b), the Court construes the 21 stipulation as a joint motion. Civil L.R. 7.2(b) (“Any stipulation for which court approval 22 is sought must first be filed as a ‘joint motion.’”). 23 Under Rule 15(a)(2), “[a] party may amend its pleading only with the opposing 24 party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Because Defendant has consented to 25 Plaintiffs’ filing of a First Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs need not obtain leave of Court. 26 See Ramirez v. Cty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1006 (9th Cir. 2015); Fern v. United 27 States, 213 F.2d 674, 677 (9th Cir. 1954) (“Once the adverse party has consented to the 28 amendment of a pleading, the court has no control over the matter under Rule 15(a).”). 1 The Parties’ request to extend Defendant’s deadline to respond to the First Amended 2 ||Complaint is GRANTED. ECF No. 5 at 3. Defendant shall respond to the First Amended 3 ||Complaint on or before June 22, 2026. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 || Dated: May 27, 2026 ‘ 7 Hon. Robert S. Huie United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28