Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 NINA VIKHRIEVA and SERGEY Case No. 25-cv-00459-BAS-SBC 14 LESHKOV, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS 15 Plaintiffs, SANOSTEM GLOBAL, LLC AND 16 v. SHIVINDER S. DEOL’S MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 55) 17 STEMEDICA CELL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; ZIUZHITANG CO., LTD.; 18 ZHUHAI HENGQIN JIUZHITANG 19 YONGHE QIHANG FUND; JIUZHITANG MAKER (BEIJING) 20 CELL TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.; 21 MAYNARD A. HOWE; ROGER J. HOWE; DAVID HOWE; NIKOLAI I. 22 TANKOVICH; DIRK P. O’HARA; 23 SIMON GUO; CRAIG W. CARLSON; MICHAEL K. STEINHAUSER; 24 SANOSTEM GLOBAL, LLC; DUNIYA 25 SANOSTEM, INC.; SHIVINDER S. DEOL, 26 Defendants. 27 28 1 Presently before the Court is Defendants Sanostem Global, LLC and Shivinder S. 2 Deol’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). (ECF 3 No. 55.) The Motion is fully briefed. (ECF Nos. 56, 58.) The Court finds this 4 motion suitable for determination on the papers submitted and without oral 5 argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); CivLR 7.1(d)(1). 6 Having reviewed the Motion, the Court finds it must be summarily denied for several 7 reasons. First, the Motion is untimely. District courts have broad authority to manage their 8 dockets and deny untimely requests. See, e.g., Dietz v. Bouldin, 579 U.S. 40, 45–47 (2016); 9 Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1088 (9th Cir. 2002). A party seeking to 10 justify a late filing must show “the party failed to act because of excusable neglect.” Fed. 11 R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B); see also Pioneer Inv. Servs. v. Brunswick Assoc. Ltd. P’ship, 507 12 U.S. 380, 395 (1993) (providing four factors to determine excusable neglect). 13 Here, Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint was filed on May 30, 2025. (ECF No. 14 32.) Defendants filed an Answer to the First Amended Complaint on May 31, 2025. (ECF 15 No. 33.) Nevertheless, Defendants also filed their Motion to Dismiss on August 29, 2025. 16 (ECF No. 55.) The Motion was filed well after the deadline to respond to the First 17 Amended Complaint, and Defendants do not demonstrate they failed to act due to 18 excusable neglect. Therefore, the Motion is subject to denial on this ground. 19 Second, the Motion to Dismiss does not comply with the Southern District of 20 California’s Civil Local Rules. Local rules are designed “to avoid an unnecessary burden 21 on the court.” Smith v. Frank, 923 F.2d 139, 142 (9th Cir. 1991). They have the “force of 22 law.” Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 191 (2010) (quoting Weil v. Neary, 278 U.S. 23 160, 169 (1929)). Sanctions for failing to follow court rules may take various forms, 24 including the striking of appropriate pleadings. Smith v. Frank, 923 F.2d 139, 142 (9th 25 Cir. 1991). 26 Under Civil Local Rule 7.1(e), the memorandum in support of a motion must not 27 exceed twenty-five pages, and the reply memorandum is limited to ten pages. In this 28 instance, the memorandum in support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss spans about thirty 1 ||pages. (See ECF No. 55-1.) In addition, despite Plaintiffs flagging this issue when 2 ||opposing the Motion, Defendants still filed a Reply that spans about twenty-one pages. 3 ECF No. 58.) Both filings exceed the page limits by a substantial margin. Defendants 4 ||did not seek leave to exceed the page limits. Their noncompliance with the Local Rules 5 || provides an additional basis to deny the Motion. 6 Third, the Motion to Dismiss flouts this Court’s Standing Order for Civil Cases. The 7 || Court’s Standing Order has the same force as any court order, and a failure to comply with 8 |/it may lead to sanctions. See, e.g., Afifeh v. Ahmadabadi, No. 2:22-CV-00928-SB-AFM, 9 WL 1617989, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2022). Relevant here, the Court’s Standing 10 || Order requires a meet-and-confer conference “at least seven days prior to the filing of the 11 |}motion.” Standing Order § 4.A. 12 The record shows that Defendants first attempted to meet and confer concerning the 13 || Motion to Dismiss on Friday, August 29, 2025, at approximately 6:37 p.m., shortly before 14 || filing the Motion that same evening. (ECF Nos. 55, 56.) That effort falls far short of the 15 || Court’s requirements and independently supports denial of the Motion. 16 In their Reply, Defendants attempt to brush off these issues as “procedural slight[s] 17 hand,” “procedural nitpicking,” and “procedural gamesmanship.” (ECF No. 58.) Yet 18 || Defendants’ repeated failure to comply with the rules cannot be excused by disparaging 19 opposing party for pointing them out. Defendants’ disregard of the rules—and their 20 || attempt to trivialize them after the fact—only underscores the seriousness of the violations. 21 ||Consequently, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 55) on 22 ||multiple independent grounds. Further, the Court warns Defendants Sanostem Global, 23 || LLC and Shivinder S. Deol and their counsel that future violations of the Federal Rules of 24 || Civil Procedure, the Local Rules, or this Court’s Standing Order may result in sanctions. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 27 || DATED: March 10, 2026 (yi. (Doha 28 H n. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court 48