Neill v. YMCA of San Diego
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se plaintiff's motion to extend the deadline to file an opposition to a motion to dismiss. The court granted the motion, granting a shorter extension than requested, and vacated the scheduled hearing to take the motion to dismiss under submission.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Extend Time to File Opposition Granted“Accordingly, and good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Extend (ECF No. 29) and VACATES the February 15, 2024 hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 27).” | agree with court The court applied the 'good cause' standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(A). The plaintiff requested the extension before the deadline, and the court noted the plaintiff is pro se. While the court declined to grant the full 90 days requested, it granted a reasonable extension (approx. 30 days) consistent with local rules and the need for the plaintiff to prepare. This is a standard discretionary ruling that follows from the law and the record. |
Motion to Dismiss Hearing Vacated and Taken Under Submission“Plaintiff SHALL FILE an opposition to the Motion to Dismiss... on or before March 7, 2024. Defendant MAY FILE a reply... on or before March 14, 2024. Thereafter, the Court will take the matter under submission without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1).” | agree with court The court vacated the hearing to allow for the extended briefing schedule. Taking the motion under submission without oral argument is consistent with Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1) and the court's stated practice. This is a procedural decision that follows from the grant of the extension. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable rule (FRCP 6(b)(1)(A)), applies the 'good cause' standard, considers the plaintiff's pro se status, and balances this against the court's local rules and calendar. The decision to grant a shorter extension than requested is within the court's discretion and is supported by the cited authorities and local rules. The order clearly sets new deadlines and procedures for the pending motion to dismiss.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANGEL MICHAEL NEILL, Case No.: 23-CV-457 JLS (DEB)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER (1) GRANTING MOTION 13 v. TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION AND (2) VACATING 14 YMCA OF SAN DIEGO, THE MOTION TO DISMISS 15 Defendant. HEARING AND TAKING SAID MOTION UNDER SUBMISSION 16 17 (ECF Nos. 27, 29)
18 19 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Angel Michael Neill’s Ex Parte Motion to 20 Extend Time to Answer and File Opposition to File Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint 21 (“Mot. to Extend,” ECF No. 29). Defendant YMCA of San Diego filed a Motion to 22 Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (“MTD,” ECF No. 27) on January 9, 2024. 23 The Motion to Dismiss was set for a hearing on February 15, 2024. See MTD. Per the 24 briefing schedule issued by this Court, Plaintiff needed to file responsive briefing on or 25 before February 1. See ECF No. 28. Plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, now asks the Court 26 for an additional 90 days to oppose the Motion to Dismiss because he is unfamiliar with 27 “amended local and federal rules.” Mot. to Extend at 2. Defendant has registered no 28 opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend. 1 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b), the Court may extend a filing deadline 2 || for “good cause” where, as here, a request for such an extension is made before the original 3 ||due date passes. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A). Mindful of the difficulties of proceeding 4 || without counsel, courts often grant a pro se plaintiff's timely request for an extension. 5 || See, e.g., Roberts v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., No. 2:12-CV-0247 KJM AC, 6 ||2014 WL 117973, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2014). There is, however, a limit. See, e.g., 7 || Dalisay v. Corbin Consulting Eng’rs, Inc., No. CIV.07-1616-HA, 2008 WL 1840750, 8 *3 (D. Or. Apr. 22, 2008), aff'd, 303 F. App’x 423 (9th Cir. 2008). This Court typically 9 ||runs on a four-week motion calendar. See CivLR 7.1(e)(1). And the Court hesitates to 10 || grant a lengthy extension at this stage without additional information regarding why such 11 is needed. The Court is thus inclined to approve Plaintiff's request but not grant the 12 90 days he seeks. Plaintiff may move for an additional extension in the future if his 13 || circumstances so require. 14 Accordingly, and good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to 15 ||Extend (ECF No. 29) and VACATES the February 15, 2024 hearing on Defendant’s 16 || Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 27). Plaintiff SHALL FILE an opposition to the Motion to 17 || Dismiss, not to exceed 25 pages in accordance with Civil Local Rule 7.1(h), on or before 18 || March 7, 2024. Defendant MAY FILE a reply in support of the Motion to Dismiss on or 19 before March 14, 2024. Thereafter, the Court will take the matter under submission 20 || without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 ||Dated: January 25, 2024 (een 3 on. Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28