Westhoff Vertriebsges mbH v. Berg
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court considered Plaintiff's motion for miscellaneous relief to extend the deadline to file an objection to a sanctions order after Plaintiff admitted to late filing due to calendaring errors. The court granted the motion, finding the delay was due to excusable neglect, and retroactively extended the deadline to November 10, 2023.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for Miscellaneous Relief granted; deadline for filing Objection to Sanctions Order extended.“Thus, the Court retroactively extends the time period for Plaintiff to file its objection to November 10, 2023 and will consider Plaintiff's objection to the sanctions order.” | agree with court The court applied the four-factor equitable test for excusable neglect under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b). The order recites that the delay was caused by counsel's incorrect calendaring, which is a common basis for finding excusable neglect as it is not strictly beyond the control of the movant but is often deemed excusable if not willful. The court cited the correct Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court authorities for the standard. The decision follows from the law and the facts recited in the order. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable rule (Rule 6(b)) and the controlling legal standard (excusable neglect). It cites the appropriate binding authorities from the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court. The factual finding that the delay was due to 'excusable neglect' based on 'incorrectly calendaring the deadline' is a standard and defensible application of the law. 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 WESTHOFF Case No. 22-cv-0938-BAS-SBC VERTRIESBGSGES MBH, 12 a German limited liability ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 13 company, MOTION FOR MISCELLANEOUS RELIEF (ECF No. 75) 14 Plaintiff, 15 v. 16 CHRISTOPHER BERG, an individual; BLUESKYE 17 CREATIVE, INC., a 18 California corporation; and DOES 1–10, inclusive; 19 Defendants. 20 21 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Miscellaneous Relief. (ECF No. 75.) 22 Plaintiff filed this motion on November 10, 2023, after realizing it had late-filed its 23 Objection to the Sanctions Order (ECF No. 74) due to incorrectly calendaring the deadline. 24 Upon considering the Plaintiff’s ex parte application and the relevant four-factor test, the 25 Court finds Plaintiff failed to timely act due to its counsel’s excusable neglect. See Fed. 26 R. Civ. P. 6(b); Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1261 (9th Cir. 2010) 27 (enumerating a four-factor equitable test for determining excusable neglect); see also 28 Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd., 507 U.S. 380, 392 (1993) (“[I]t is clear 1 || that ‘excusable neglect’ under Rule 6(b) is a somewhat ‘elastic concept’ and is not limited 2 strictly to omissions caused by circumstances beyond the control of the movant.”’). Thus, 3 ||the Court retroactively extends the time period for Plaintiff to file its objection to 4 ||November 10, 2023 and will consider Plaintiff's objection to the sanctions order. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 A , 7 || DATED: November 15, 2023 Lin A (Bashan. 6 g United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4.