Aragon v. Experian Data Corporation
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
Defendant Experian moved ex parte for an extension of time to respond to the complaint. The court denied the motion without prejudice because the complaint had not yet been screened under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), meaning the defendant had not been served and the response clock had not started.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Defendant's ex parte motion to extend time to respond is denied without prejudice.“With this in mind, the Motion to Extend is DENIED without prejudice. (ECF No. 6.)” | agree with court The court correctly identified that under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), the time to respond does not begin until service, which cannot occur until the IFP complaint is screened. Since the summons had not been issued, the motion was premature. Denying it without prejudice is the appropriate procedural mechanism to allow the motion to be refiled once service occurs. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the statutory screening requirement for IFP cases. It logically concludes that because screening has not occurred, service has not occurred, and therefore the deadline to respond has not started. The denial without prejudice is procedurally sound.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL ARAGON, Case No. 25-cv-0814-BAS-SBC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 13 v. EX PARTE MOTION TO EXTEND 14 EXPERIAN DATA CORPORATION, (ECF No. 6) 15 Defendant. 16 17 Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (“Experian” or “Defendant”) has 18 moved ex parte for an extension of its time to respond to the Complaint. (ECF No. 6.) The 19 Court denies this motion as improperly filed for the following reasons. 20 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), federal courts must screen all in forma pauperis 21 complaints and any amended complaints before allowing the case to move forward, issuing 22 summonses, and requiring a responsive pleading. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th 23 Cir. 2000) (en banc) (§ 1915(e) applies to “all in forma pauperis complaints”). If a 24 complaint states a valid claim for relief, the court will direct the Clerk of Court to issue 25 summons to the defendant(s) and the plaintiff must then serve the summons and complaint 26 within 90 days. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 27 Plaintiff filed their complaint with an accompanying Motion for Leave to Proceed 28 in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) The summons has not yet been issued in this case as 1 ||the complaint has not yet been screened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Therefore, 2 Experian has not yet been properly served and the clock has not begun on its deadline to 3 ||respond to the Complaint. With this in mind, the Motion to Extend is DENIED without 4 || prejudice. (ECF No. 6.) 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 DATED: June 2, 2025 ii ly A (Dipharb 8 Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge 9 United States District Court 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 a.