Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 123 Filed 10/25/24 Page 1 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`ASHLEY M GJOVIK,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 23-cv-04597-EMC
`
`
`ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
`MOTION FOR EXTENSION
`
`
`Docket No. 115
`
`
`
`Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time. Plaintiff asks
`
`that she be given more time to file an amended complaint. The current deadline for that filing is
`
`October 29, 2024. See Docket No. 112 (Order at 41). She argues that an extension is appropriate
`
`because she has appealed the Court’s most recent 12(b)(6) order, see Docket No. 113 (notice of
`
`appeal), and the Ninth Circuit is likely to rule in her favor. She also notes that she has filed a
`
`motion to stay proceedings altogether in this Court pending her appeal before the Ninth Circuit.
`
`Having considered the parties’ briefs as well as all other evidence of record, the Court
`
`hereby DENIES Plaintiff’s motion. The motion is denied because, even though Plaintiff has an
`
`appeal pending before the Ninth Circuit, it is unlikely that the Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction over
`
`the appeal. “The courts of appeals . . . shall have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of
`
`the district courts of the United States . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (emphasis added). “[A] final
`
`decision ‘ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the
`
`judgment.” Hall v. Hall, 584 U.S. 59, 64 (2018) (adding that “[t]he archetypal final decision is
`
`‘one[ ] that trigger[s] the entry of judgment’”); see also Moore’s Fed. Prac. – Civ. § 202.02
`
`(noting that courts have construed the term “final decisions” to mean final judgments); United
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 123 Filed 10/25/24 Page 2 of 4
`
`
`
`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
`
`States v. Allahyari, 99 F.4th 486, 491 (9th Cir. 2024) (stating that finality must be given a practical
`
`construction and “a judgment will be deemed final ‘if it fully adjudicates the issues and clearly
`
`evinces the district court’s intention that it be that court’s final act in the matter’”). Here, the
`
`Court’s 12(b)(6) order did not end the case in its entirety as there are still claims remaining in the
`
`case that have not been dismissed as well as claims that the Court has allowed Plaintiff to amend.
`
`Cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) (“[A]ny order or other decision . . . that adjudicates fewer than all the
`
`claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the action as to any of
`
`the claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all
`
`the claims and all the parties’ rights and liabilities.”).
`
`Furthermore, although 28 U.S.C. § 1292 allows for appeals of interlocutory orders in some
`
`instances, such appeals are very limited in nature. See, e.g., Carson v. Am. Brands, 450 U.S. 79,
`
`84 (1981) (stating that, “[f]or an interlocutory order to be immediately appealable under § 1292
`
`(a)(1), however, a litigant must show more than that the order has the practical effect of refusing
`
`an injunction[;] [b]ecause § 1292 (a)(1) was intended to carve out only a limited exception to the
`
`final-judgment rule, we have construed the statute narrowly to ensure that appeal as of right under
`
`§ 1292 (a)(1) will be available only in circumstances where an appeal will further the statutory
`
`purpose of ‘[permitting] litigants to effectually challenge interlocutory orders of serious, perhaps
`
`irreparable, consequence’”).
`
`Because it is unlikely that Plaintiff’s appeal is proper, an extension of time for Plaintiff to
`
`file an amended complaint is delay that is unwarranted. However, to ensure that there is no
`
`prejudice to Plaintiff (e.g., if she were waiting for this Court’s decision), the Court shall give
`
`Plaintiff one additional week to file her amended pleading, and, correspondingly, Defendant shall
`
`have one additional week to file a response to the amendment. More time is not warranted given
`
`that the Court already gave Plaintiff four weeks to amend and Plaintiff could have moved for relief
`
`earlier. In this regard, the Court notes that Plaintiff filed her notice of appeal the same day that the
`
`Court issued its order. At or about that time, Plaintiff could have asked for an extension of time.
`
`Instead, she waited for another three weeks – and when her amendment was due only a week later
`
`– to seek relief.
`
`2
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 123 Filed 10/25/24 Page 3 of 4
`
`
`
`Plaintiff has, in the alternative, asked for leave to file a 200-page amended complaint. The
`
`Court has limited Plaintiff to 75 pages. Plaintiff asserts that a pleading of 200 pages is necessary
`
`for two reasons: “to 1) retain the claims dismissed with prejudice for the sake of preserving error
`
`for later appeal, and to 2) ensure adequate pleading of claims that were given leave to amend.”
`
`Mot. at 2. This alternative request for relief is also denied. As Defendant points out, she does not
`
`need to replead dismissed claims in order to preserve them for appeal. See Lacey v. Maricopa
`
`Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (“For claims dismissed with prejudice and
`
`without leave to amend, we will not require that they be repled in a subsequent amended
`
`complaint to preserve them for appeal.”); Najarian Holdings LLC v. Corevest Am. Fin. Lender
`
`LLC, No. 20-cv-00799-PJH, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188667, at *24 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2020)
`
`(“The Ninth Circuit does not require plaintiffs to replead claims that were dismissed with
`
`prejudice in an amended complaint in order to preserve them for appeal.”). Moreover, as this
`
`Court has previously noted, this is not the kind of case that warrants a pleading of that length.
`
`Although there is a long history between Plaintiff and Defendant, the gist of her claims is that
`
`Defendant has engaged in conduct detrimental to environmental safety and that Defendant
`
`retaliated against her when she complained about this conduct as well as other conduct by the
`
`company. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 simply requires:
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`3
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 123 Filed 10/25/24 Page 4 of 4
`
`
`
`
`(1)
`
`
`(2)
`
`
`(3)
`
`a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s
`jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the
`claim needs no new jurisdictional support;
`
`a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
`pleader is entitled to relief; and
`
`a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in
`the alternative or different types of relief.
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).
`
`This order disposes of Docket No. 115.
`
`
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`Dated: October 25, 2024
`
`
`
`______________________________________
`
`EDWARD M. CHEN
`United States District Judge
`
`4
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`