2:25-cv-02804•(PS) Castaneda v. 6939 Fair Oaks Blvd TIC LLC
Full text
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CHERRISH CASTANEDA, Plaintiff, v. 6939 FAIR OAKS BLVD TIC LLC, Defendant. No. 2:25-cv-02804-TLN-SCR ORDER Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this matter, which is referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a 14-day extension of time to file her Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). ECF No. 10. On October 24, 2025, the Court issued an order allowing Plaintiff 30 days to file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). ECF No. 8 at 10. This order was docketed nearly contemporaneously with Plaintiff’s FAC (ECF No. 7). Therefore, the Court issued a Minute Order clarifying that Plaintiff had 30 days to file a SAC, or otherwise the Court would screen the FAC under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Plaintiff now seeks an extension of time to December 9, 2025 to file a SAC. ECF No. 10 at 6. Plaintiff further seeks a finding from the Court that such extension is required as a “reasonable modification” under the ADA. Id. The Court finds good cause for an extension of time. The Court need not reach the issue presented by Plaintiff concerning an accommodation under the ADA.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time (ECF No. 10) is GRANTED. 2. Plaintiff shall file a second amended complaint on or before December 9, 2025. SO ORDERED. DATED: December 2, 2025.
Wondering how this text applies to your situation?
Free consultation, no commitment
Describe your situation. Our team will contact you by email about your consultation.
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.