Rizik et al v. Virnig 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
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Angelica Rizik, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Jake William Virnig, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-00776-PHX-KML
ORDER
Plaintiffs move for a one-week extension to the deadline to file an amended
complaint due to counsel’s planned vacation during a holiday. (Doc. 59.) There is no
evidence of bad faith or prejudice which will result from this extension, nor is there
evidence of any other reason why defendants or their counsel should have refused this
request. See Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1263 (9th Cir. 2010). If
similar requests are made in the future, the parties and their counsel should not oppose
them absent a valid basis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1927 (sanctions available when counsel
“unreasonably and vexatiously” multiplies proceedings).
/
/
/
/
/
/
Case 2:25-cv-00776-KML Document 60 Filed 01/05/26 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
IT IS ORDERED the Motion for Extension of Time to File Amended Complaint
(Doc. 59) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint shall be filed on or before
January 14, 2025.
Dated this 2nd day of January, 2026.
Case 2:25-cv-00776-KML Document 60 Filed 01/05/26 Page 2 of 2