1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHARON OLIVERIA, individually and ) Case No.: 3:22-cv-00003-LL-WVG on behalf of themselves and all others ) 12 similarly situated, ) ORDER ON MOTION FOR 13 ) ADDITIONAL TIME TO RESPOND Plaintiff, ) 14 v. ) [ECF No. 5] 15 ) AMN HEALTHCARE, INC., a Nevada ) 16 corporation; DOES 1 through 10, ) inclusive, 17 ) Defendant. ) 18 19 I. INTRODUCTION 20 Plaintiff SHARON OLIVERIA, individually and on behalf of themselves and all 21 others similarly situated (“Plaintiff”) brings this putative class action for violation of the 22 Fair Labor Standards Act,

, et seq. (the “FLSA”), and the Ohio Minimum 23 Fair Wage Standards Act, O.R.C. 4111.01, et seq. (the “OMWFSA”), against Defendant 24 AMN HEALTHCARE, INC., a Nevada corporation (“Defendant”) and DOES 1 through 25 10. ECF No. 1. Before the Court is the Joint Motion to Extend Defendant’s Time to 26 Respond to the Complaint. ECF No. 5. After considering the papers submitted, supporting 27 documentation, and applicable law, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion. 28 / / / 1 II. BACKGROUND 2 On January 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed suit, alleging claims for relief for (1) off-the-clock 3 work in violation of the FLSA; (2) off-the-clock work in violation of the OMFWSA; (3) 4 failure to include bonus pay in overtime rate in violation of the FLSA; (4) failure to include 5 bonus pay in overtime rate in violation of the OMFWSA; (5) unlawful unpaid breaks in 6 violation of the FLSA; (6) unlawful unpaid breaks in violation of the OMFWSA; (7) 7 improper kickbacks in violation of the FLSA; and (8) improper kickbacks in violation of 8 the OMFWSA. ECF No. 1. 9 On January 18, 2022, Plaintiff served Defendant, meaning Defendant has until 10 Tuesday, February 8, 2022, to respond. See ECF No. 4; ECF No. 5 at 2:8-11; FED. R. CIV.

(a)(1)(A). On January 31, 2022, Plaintiff and Defendant filed the instant Joint Motion 12 to extend Defendant’s time to respond to the complaint by fifteen days. ECF No. 5 at 2:12- 13 13. 14 III. LEGAL STANDARD 15 Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a defendant to file a 16 responsive pleading within either (1) twenty-one days of being served with the summons 17 and complaint or (2) sixty days after the request for a waiver was sent. Pursuant to the 18 Local Rules, “[e]xtensions of time for answering, or moving to dismiss a complaint will 19 only be secured by obtaining the approval of a judicial officer, who will base the decision 20 on a showing of good case.” S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 12.1. Thus, “[i]n the Southern District, 21 court approval is required for any extension of time to answer or move to dismiss the 22 complaint.” Phillips, Virginia A., et al., Rutter Group Prac. Guide: Fed. Civ. Pro. Before 23 Trial, § 8:913 (The Rutter Group April 2020). 24 IV. ORDER 25 Defendant seeks a fifteen-day extension of time to respond to the complaint, 26 extending their deadline from Tuesday, February 8, 2022, to February 23, 2022. Defendant 27 argues the additional time is necessary given the complaint alleges eight claims for relief 28 and contains 134 paragraphs of allegations. The Court finds good cause exists to grant the | Joint Motion. The Court grants a thirty-day extension of time to respond, meaning 2 Defendant shall have until Thursday, March 10, 2022, to respond to the complaint. 3 However, further extensions will not be granted absent a showing of good cause. 4 Plaintiff is reminded that with respect to DOES | through 10, “[a] plaintiff may refer 5 to unknown defendants as Defendant John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, and so on, but © must allege specific facts showing how each particular doe defendant violated his 7 rights.” Keavney v. Cty. of San Diego, No. 319CV01947AJBBGS,

, at 8 *4-5 (S.D. Cal. July 21, 2020) (Battaglia, J.) (citing FED. R. Civ. P. 10(a)). Where a plaintiff ? || fails to link the alleged wrong or explain how any of the unidentified parties he sued 10 personally caused a violation of his rights, the court must dismiss those individuals, I] especially when they have not been served. See, e.g., FED. R. Clv. P. 4(m) (providing that 12 a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on 13 || motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—amust dismiss the action without prejudice 14 against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.”); see also 15 Cal. Civ. R. 41.1(a); Keavney,

at *4-5 (dismissing the plaintiffs 16 first amended complaint). Here, Plaintiffs complaint to does not contain specific 17 allegations against specific doe defendants. Thus, absent service upon specific defendants 18 || within thirty (30) days, the Court will dismiss the doe defendants without prejudice. 19 || Plaintiff can always seek leave to amend to add additional defendants at a later date 20 pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 || DATED: February 4, 2022 23 HON. LINDA LOPEZ United States District Judge 25 26 27 28 3.