Gjovik v. Apple Inc.

Background

Ashley M Gjovik moved for an extension of time to file an amended complaint. The deadline was October 29, 2024. She argued that more time was appropriate because she had appealed the court’s most recent order dismissing claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint adequately states a claim. She also noted that she had asked this court to pause the proceedings while the appeal was pending.

Gjovik alternatively asked for permission to file a 200-page amended complaint. The court had limited the amended complaint to 75 pages. She said the additional length was needed to preserve claims dismissed with prejudice for a possible appeal and to adequately plead claims for which the court had allowed amendment. The opinion states that the claims generally concern alleged conduct detrimental to environmental safety and alleged retaliation after Gjovik complained about that conduct and other conduct by Apple Inc.

Court’s reasoning

The court denied the requested extension because it considered it unlikely that the Ninth Circuit had jurisdiction over the appeal. The earlier Rule 12(b)(6) order had not ended the entire case: some claims remained, and some claims could be amended. The court explained that appeals generally may be taken from final decisions, and that the earlier order was not final because it did not resolve all claims and parties’ rights. The court also stated that immediate appeals from nonfinal orders are available only in limited circumstances.

The court concluded that delaying the amendment deadline based on the pending appeal was unwarranted. It noted that Gjovik had received four weeks to amend and had waited approximately three weeks before seeking an extension. The court nevertheless gave her one additional week to file the amended pleading, and gave Apple Inc. one additional week to respond, to avoid possible prejudice.

The court also denied the alternative request for a 200-page complaint. It stated that Gjovik did not need to replead claims dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend in order to preserve them for appeal. The court further concluded that the case did not warrant a complaint of that length and cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8’s requirement of a short and plain statement of the grounds for jurisdiction, the claim for relief, and the requested relief.

Disposition

The court denied Plaintiff’s motion for an extension and denied the request to file a 200-page amended complaint. It allowed one additional week for the amended pleading and one additional week for Apple Inc.’s response. The order disposed of Docket No. 115.