Martinez v. AJM Packaging Corporation
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court considered a joint motion by the parties to extend Defendant Armando Medina's deadline to respond to the complaint due to his difficulty in obtaining counsel. The court granted the motion, retroactively extending the deadline to March 18, 2024, based on a finding of excusable neglect.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the parties' Joint Motion to Extend Time to File Answer“Thus, the Court retroactively extends the time period for Medina to file his response to the Complaint to March 18, 2024.” | agree with court The court applied the four-factor equitable test for excusable neglect under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b), citing the Ninth Circuit's formulation in Ahanchian and the Supreme Court's guidance in Pioneer. The stated reason for the extension—difficulty obtaining counsel—is a common basis for finding excusable neglect. The order is consistent with the cited authorities and the procedural posture. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable standard (excusable neglect under Rule 6(b)) and cites the controlling Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court authorities for that standard. The application of the standard to the facts (difficulty obtaining counsel) is straightforward and legally sound. The order is concise but sufficient for a procedural scheduling matter.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SAMANTHA MARTINEZ, an individual, Case No. 24-cv-0268-BAS-BGS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PARTIES’ 13 v. JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE ANSWER (ECF No. 9) 14 AJM PACKAGING CORPORATION, a business entity, form unknown; 15 ARMANDO MEDINA, an individual; and 16 DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, 17 Defendants. 18 19 Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to Extend Defendant Armando 20 Medina’s Deadline to Respond to Complaint (“Joint Motion”). (ECF No. 9.) The parties 21 seek the extension due to Defendant Medina’s difficulties in obtaining appropriate counsel 22 in time to respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint. (Id. ¶ 7.) 23 Upon considering the parties’ Joint Motion and the relevant four-factor test, the 24 Court finds Medina failed to timely act due to excusable neglect. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b); 25 Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1261 (9th Cir. 2010) (enumerating a 26 four-factor equitable test for determining excusable neglect); see also Pioneer Inv. Servs. 27 Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd., 507 U.S. 380, 392 (1993) (“[I]t is clear that ‘excusable 28 neglect’ under Rule 6(b) is a somewhat ‘elastic concept’ and is not limited strictly to 1 || omissions caused by circumstances beyond the control of the movant.”). Thus, the Court 2 ||retroactively extends the time period for Medina to file his response to the Complaint to 3 March 18, 2024. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 A , 6 || DATED: March 25, 2024 Ypilag (Lyohaa 6 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4.