Rukstalis et al v. Kinecta Federal Credit Union et al

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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JAMES RUKSTALIS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
KINECTA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, et
al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 25-cv-03943-NW
ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE
APPLICATION TO EXTEND THE
TIME TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT
Re: ECF No. 51
The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs’ ex parte application to extend the time to file a second
amended complaint (“SAC”) filed earlier today on February 9, 2026. In an Order issued on
February 7, 2026, this Court set the deadline to file the SAC for February 10, 2026. In that Order,
the Court explained that it had previously vacated the January 15, 2026 deadline for Plaintiff to
file the SAC when only a single day remained (i.e. January 16, 2026). See ECF No. 50. The
Court vacated that deadline based on the parties’ express representation that they had settled the
matter. Id. When Plaintiffs later clarified that the matter was not settled as they had represented
in their request, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to file the SAC on February 10, 2026, which was
already weeks beyond the original deadline for filing the SAC. Id. Now counsel of record for
Plaintiffs, Berliner Cohen LLP, asks the Court to yet again extend that deadline until sometime
after February 17, 2026, the date when Plaintiffs’ motion to substitute counsel to Lathrop GPM
LLP will be heard. ECF No. 51. For the reasons articulated in the Court’s recent Order and
summarized above, the Court denies that request.
Nevertheless, the Court acknowledges that Berliner Cohen LLP has asserted it can no
longer adequately represent the Plaintiffs and therefore cannot file the SAC on Plaintiffs’ behalf.
In Berliner Cohen LLP’s view, “Plaintiffs should be entitled to work with proposed new counsel
Case 5:25-cv-03943-NW Document 52 Filed 02/09/26 Page 1 of 2

2
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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
on this matter.” ECF No. 51. For this reason, the Court PROVISIONALLY GRANTS IN PART
AND DENIES IN PART Lathrop GPM LLP’s motion to substitute at ECF No. 45 until the matter
can be heard on February 17, 2026. Berliner Cohen LLP is not released from this action, but
Lathrop GPM LLP may provisionally appear as co-counsel to ensure Plaintiffs have the
opportunity to meet the instructions set forth in the Court’s previous Order. Accordingly, the
Court ORDERS:
(1) Lathrop GPM LLP shall provisionally serve as counsel of record for Plaintiffs
alongside Berliner Cohen LLP through the February 17, 2026 hearing;
(2) A representative from both firms must appear in person at that February 17, 2026
hearing;
(3) Because the Order on the motion to substitute, ECF No. 45, is provisional, the Court
will issue a final Order after argument at the hearing; and
(4) Plaintiffs’ SAC remains due on February 10, 2026, by 5:00 p.m.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 9, 2026
Noël Wise
United States District Judge
1 Though the Court was explicit in its previous Orders that Plaintiffs must attach a copy of the
Loan Agreement to any complaint alleging breach of that agreement (or related claims), because
Plaintiffs failed to comply with that Order, the Court reiterates that direction here to avoid any
possible doubt. See ECF Nos. 25, 36. Failure to attach the Loan Agreement to the SAC shall
subject all counsel for Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs themselves, to additional sanctions.
Case 5:25-cv-03943-NW Document 52 Filed 02/09/26 Page 2 of 2