Shields v. Dollar Tree, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT B SHIELDS, individually and Case No.: 23-CV-925 JLS (BLM) on behalf of all others similarly situated, 12 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S Plaintiff, 13 MOTION TO EXTEND v. PLAINTIFF’S TIME TO FILE 14 AMENDED COMPLAINT DOLLAR TREE, INC., 15 Defendant. (ECF No. 13) 16 17 18 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Robert B. Shields’ Motion to Extend 19 Plaintiff’s Time to File Amended Complaint (“Mot.,” ECF No. 13). An earlier Order from 20 this Court gave Plaintiff until November 30, 2023, to amend his Complaint. See ECF 21 No. 12 (the “Order”) at 4. Plaintiff now seeks a sixty-day extension, which would push his 22 deadline to January 29, 2024. Mot. at 2. 23 Though this case is in its earliest stages, this is not the first time Plaintiff has delayed 24 these proceedings. Plaintiff initiated this action on May 19, 2023. See ECF No. 1. The 25 Court issued a summons three days later. See ECF No. 2. But Plaintiff failed to serve 26 Defendant within the ninety-day period required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). 27 See generally Docket. Plaintiff did not request an extension until this Court ordered him 28 to explain his failure to timely serve Defendant. See ECF Nos. 3, 4. The Court granted 1 Plaintiff’s request, see ECF No. 5, and—nearly a month later—the case proceeded. 2 Plaintiff missed further deadlines after Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss (“Mot. 3 to Dismiss,” ECF No. 7). That motion was set to be heard on November 8, 2023. Mot. to 4 Dismiss at 1. So, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(e), Plaintiff’s opposition was due by 5 October 25, 2023. And yet, October 25 came and went without any filings from Plaintiff. 6 See Docket. Plaintiff did not respond even after the Court noted—when taking the matter 7 under submission—that the Motion to Dismiss remained unopposed. See ECF No. 11. 8 Accordingly, on November 16, 2023, the Court granted Defendant’s unopposed Motion to 9 Dismiss pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c). See Order at 4. Despite Plaintiff’s failure to 10 prosecute his case, the Court granted Plaintiff two weeks to file an amended complaint. 11 See id. 12 Plaintiff now seeks to delay this case further. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13 6(b)(1)(A), a court may grant an extension for good cause where, as here, the request is 14 made before the original due date passes. “Rule 6(b), like all Federal Rules of Civil 15 Procedure, must be ‘construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive 16 determination of every action and proceeding.’” GPMI Co. v. Michelin Lifestyle Ltd., 17 No. CV-21-00299-PHX-GMS, 2022 WL 951073, at *1 (D. Ariz. Mar. 30, 2022) (quoting 18 Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2010)). So, “requests 19 for extensions of time made before the applicable deadline has passed should 20 ‘normally . . . be granted in the absence of bad faith on the part of the party seeking relief 21 or prejudice to the adverse party.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Ahanchian, 22 624 F.3d at 1259). 23 Plaintiff’s first attempt to establish good cause is not convincing. Plaintiff, who is 24 represented by counsel, states that he “didn’t realize that [he] should respond to 25 Defendant’s [Motion to Dismiss] within 14 days.” Mot. at 1. While there is no rigid rule 26 for determining the presence of good cause or excusable neglect, “a lawyer’s failure to read 27 an applicable rule is one of the least compelling excuses that can be offered.” Pincay v. 28 Andrews, 389 F.3d 853, 859 (9th Cir. 2004). Ignorance of a local rule is thus generally not 1 an excuse for failing to meet a deadline. See, e.g., Eisenberg v. Citibank N.A., 2 No. 213CV01814CASJPRX, 2017 WL 532936, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2017) (“Where the 3 deadline for a filing is unambiguous, an attorney’s neglect is typically inexcusable.”), aff’d, 4 787 F. App’x 929 (9th Cir. 2019). 5 Plaintiff also contends that an extension is needed because he is seeking new 6 counsel; however, that is an issue he could have raised much earlier. See Mot. at 2. 7 Plaintiff claims he previously communicated with Defendant about continuing the Motion 8 to Dismiss hearing, given Plaintiff’s wish to employ new counsel. See id. Interestingly, 9 said communication occurred on November 1, 2023, which was (1) the same day the Court 10 vacated the hearing and pointed out that Plaintiff had failed to oppose the Motion to 11 Dismiss, ECF No. 11; (2) fifteen days before the Court granted the Motion to Dismiss, see 12 ECF No. 12; and (3) a full twenty-six days before Plaintiff filed his present request, see 13 Mot. Plaintiff makes no effort to explain why he waited nearly a month to move for an 14 extension. See generally id. 15 Though Plaintiff’s actions (and inaction) test the Court’s patience, the Court will 16 nevertheless grant Plaintiff additional time to amend his complaint. The need to find new 17 counsel—and allow said counsel time to prepare—can constitute good cause to extend case 18 deadlines. See Burnett v. Duna USA Inc., No. CV223288FMOMRWX, 19 2023 WL 6781483, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2023). The Court sees no evidence to suggest 20 that Plaintiff’s Motion is made in bad faith, nor has Defendant filed any opposition to 21 Plaintiff’s request.1 However, the Court must also consider potential prejudice to 22 Defendant. See GPMI Co., 2022 WL 951073, at *1. Given the prejudice a lengthy delay 23 24 25 1 Indeed, it is possible Defendant intended to jointly submit the present Motion. The Motion is simply titled “Motion to Extend Plaintiff’s Time to File Amended Complaint,” but the footer on the first page of 26 the Motion states “Joint Motion to Extend Time.” Mot. at 1. More confusing still, the footers on the remaining pages of the Motion state only “Motion to Extend the Deadline.” Id. at 2–3. Additionally, the 27 Motion is signed solely by Plaintiff’s counsel, not Defendant’s. See id. at 3. If, however, Plaintiff’s 28 Motion was filed ex parte, the Motion fails to comply with Civil Local Rule 83.3(g)(2). The Court expects 1 |/can cause, and as Plaintiff's request could have been raised earlier and follows repeated 2 delays, the Court is disinclined to grant Plaintiff the full sixty-days he seeks. 3 To that end, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Plaintiff's Time to 4 || File Amended Complaint (ECF No. 13). Plaintiff MAY FILE an amended complaint on 5 || or before January 4, 2024. Absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extensions shall 6 ||be granted. Further, the Court reminds Plaintiff that, should he fail to file an amended 7 || pleading in accordance with this Order, the Court will enter a final order dismissing this 8 action based on Plaintiffs failure to prosecute in compliance with a court order 9 ||requiring amendment. See Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005). 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 |}Dated: November 29, 2023 (een 12 on. Janis L. Sammartino 3 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28