Gopher Media LLC v. Melone

District Court, S.D. California · 3:21-cv-01909 · 2021-12-29 · Unknown

Proceeding: district
Area: civil
On appeal: Gopher Media LLC v. Melone (2025-03-03); Gopher Media LLC v. Melone (2025-10-09) — the Ninth Circuit's later ruling on this docket
Panel: Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt own-v1, 2026-10-13T22:41Z · confidence high

Defendants filed an unopposed ex parte application to extend the deadline to respond to the Complaint. The court granted the application and set a new deadline of January 3, 2022.

What the court decided	The model
Granting Defendants' ex parte application to extend time to respond to the Complaint “Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ application. (ECF No. 11.)”	agree with court The order recites that the request is for a routine procedural order, is unopposed, and that plaintiffs were given notice. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b), a court may extend a deadline for good cause, and unopposed extensions for routine matters are typically granted. The court's reliance on the representation of notice and lack of opposition supports the finding of good cause in this procedural context.

What the court decided

The model

Granting Defendants' ex parte application to extend time to respond to the Complaint

“Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ application. (ECF No. 11.)”

agree with court
The order recites that the request is for a routine procedural order, is unopposed, and that plaintiffs were given notice. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b), a court may extend a deadline for good cause, and unopposed extensions for routine matters are typically granted. The court's reliance on the representation of notice and lack of opposition supports the finding of good cause in this procedural context.

The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the nature of the request as a routine procedural matter suitable for ex parte relief. It cites appropriate local precedent for the standard of ex parte applications and notes the lack of opposition and notice to the opposing party, which are key factors in granting such extensions. The reasoning is sufficient for a procedural order of this type.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GOPHER MEDIA LLC, et al., Case No. 21-cv-01909-BAS-WVG 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 13 v. UNOPPOSED Ex Parte APPLICATION TO EXTEND TIME 14 ANDREW MELONE, et al., TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT 15 Defendants. (ECF No. 11)

17 18 19 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ ex parte application to extend time to 20 respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint. (ECF No. 11.) Ex parte relief may be granted where, as 21 here, “the party seeks a routine procedural order that cannot be obtained through a regularly 22 noticed motion,” such as extending time to file a brief. See In re ConAgra Foods, Inc., No. 23 CV 11-05379-MMM (AGRx), 2014 WL 12580052, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2014) 24 (holding that while “opportunities for legitimate ex parte applications are extremely 25 limited,” a party seeking a routine procedural order is one instance where the limited use 26 of the relief is allowed). A short, unopposed continuance of a deadline to respond to 27 pleading is routinely granted. Further, Defendants represent that Plaintiffs have been given 28 notice of the application that Plaintiffs do not oppose the requested extension. Good cause 1 || appearing, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ application. (ECF No. 11.) Defendants shall 2 ||respond to Plaintiff's Complaint on or before January 3, 2022. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 A 5 || DATED: December 29, 2021 yi Ug (Lyohaa 6 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28