Gulaid v. Fluor Corporation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA HAKIM GULAID, Case No. 25-cv-07856-AGT Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF v. TIME TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FLUOR CORPORATION, Re: Dkt. No. 19 Defendant. Plaintiff Hakim Gulaid, proceeding pro se, seeks an additional sixty days to file his second amended complaint. Dkt. 19. Defendant Fluor Corporation (Fluor) opposes. Dkt. 20. For the reasons that follow, the Court grants the extension. Gulaid must file a second amended complaint by June 16, 2026. No further extensions shall be granted. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1) requires good cause for a court to extend time. Fluor argues that Gulaid fails to show good cause. Dkt. 20 at 3–4. But Gulaid pleads that he is seeking legal representation and has completed initial consultations with potential counsel. Dkt. 19 at 1. As such, the Court finds that Gulaid has demonstrated good cause. See, e.g., Saxena v. Saxena, No. 21-CV-02197, 2023 WL 2537850, at *2 (D. Nev. Mar. 15, 2023) (finding same), report and recommendation adopted, No. 21-CV-02197, 2023 WL 4883407 (D. Nev. July 31, 2023). Nor does prejudice to Fluor require this Court to deny Gulaid’s request. Fluor argues only that this request will delay resolution of the proceedings. Dkt. 20 at 4. But Gulaid timely filed his request for an extension and seeks only an additional sixty days to file his complaint. On these facts, the Court finds that any prejudice to Fluor is sufficiently minor. Gulaid may file a second amended complaint by June 16, 2026. This order dispenses with dkt. 19. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 10, 2026 Alex G. Tse United States Magistrate Judge