Tedesco v. Grand Brands, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Todd W. Robinson (author)
Analysis
The court considered a joint motion by the plaintiff and defendant for a retroactive extension of time to file the defendant's answer, which had previously been struck as untimely. The court granted the motion, finding good cause and excusable neglect, and ordered the defendant to file its answer within three court days.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the joint motion for a retroactive extension of time to answer the complaint.“The Court therefore GRANTS Defendant’s Joint Motion. Accordingly, Defendant SHALL FILE its Answer within three court days of the electronic docketing of this Order.” | agree with court The court applied the standard for extending time under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b), requiring a showing of good cause and excusable neglect. The order recites that the defendant made such a showing via declarations and that the parties agreed the error was excusable. While the court notes that party stipulations do not bind it, it independently finds the extension merited based on the record. This is a standard procedural ruling consistent with the cited authorities. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the legal standard for extending time under Rule 6(b) and cites the appropriate Ninth Circuit authority regarding the non-binding nature of party stipulations. It explicitly states that it is granting the motion based on its own conclusion of good cause and excusable neglect, rather than merely adopting the parties' agreement. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a procedural order of this nature.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARY TEDESCO, on behalf of herself Case No.: 20-CV-1928 TWR (JLB) and all others similarly situated, and the 12 general public, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 13 MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF Plaintiff, TIME TO ANSWER PLAINTIFF’S 14 v. COMPLAINT 15 GRAND BRANDS, INC., a Delaware (ECF No. 10) 16 corporation, dba True Citrus or True Lemon, 17 Defendant. 18 19 On November 23, 2020, the Court struck Defendant Grand Brands, Inc.’s Answer to 20 Plaintiff Mary Tedesco’s Complaint as untimely filed. (See ECF No. 9.) Defendant now 21 moves, jointly with Plaintiff, for a retroactive extension of its deadline to respond to 22 Plaintiff’s Complaint, (see ECF No. 10 (“Joint Mot.”)), explaining that, “[f]ollowing the 23 expiration of Defendant’s original time to respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint, counsel for the 24 Parties conferred, determined an excusable error had occurred, and agreed Defendant 25 would file its Answer as soon as practicable.” (Id. at 1.) Such stipulations do not bind the 26 Court, however, unless the Court approves them. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1); see also 27 In re Sonoma V, 703 F.2d 429, 431 (9th Cir. 1983) (“Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b) the parties 28 may not agree to an extension of time without court approval.”). 1 Nonetheless, the Court concludes that an extension is merited on Defendant’s 2 ||showing of good cause and excusable neglect. (See Joint Mot. at 5—7; ECF No. 10-1 3 (“Spivey Decl.”); ECF No. 10-2 (‘Cuddihy Decl.”).) The Court therefore GRANTS 4 || Defendant’s Joint Motion. Accordingly, Defendant SHALL FILE its Answer within three 5 court days of the electronic docketing of this Order. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: November 30, 2020 | 99> (2 re Honorable Todd W. Robinson 10 United States District Court 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28