(PS) Houhoulas v. CalTrans HR

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JOHN HOUHOULAS, No. 2:22-cv-0413 TLN DB PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HUMAN RESOURCES, et al., 16 Defendants.

18 Plaintiff John Houhoulas is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff commenced this action on March 4, 2022, by filing a complaint and paying the required filing fee.

21 (ECF No. 1.) On June 21, 2022, defendants California State Personnel Board and Jennifer Maly filed an ex parte application for an order extending the time to respond to plaintiff’s complaint to July 22, 2022. (ECF No. 5.)

24 Therein, defendants state that they believe the complaint was served on June 2 or June 4, 2022. (Id. at 3.) The time for responding to the complaint has not yet passed. (Id. at 4.)

26 Defendants, however, are seeking additional time to evaluate the complaint’s 16 claims. (Id. at 3.) Defendants contacted plaintiff to request a stipulation but plaintiff indicated an unwillingness to agree to a stipulation. (Id.) 1 Rule 6(b)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the court may grant | an extension of time for “good cause” if the request is made “before the original time” to act has | expired. The decision to grant or deny such a request is within the court’s discretion. See | Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258 (9th Cir. 2012). Here, the undersigned | finds that defendants’ motion establishes good cause to grant the request.

6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. Defendants’ June 21, 2022 ex parte application (ECF No. 5) is granted; and 8 2. Defendants shall file a response to plaintiff's complaint on or before July 22, 2022.

9 | Dated: June 23, 2022 D -BORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE | DLB:6 DB/orders/orders.pro se/houhoulas0413.eot.ord