Graham v. AT&T Services, 5:16-cv-00528-ODW(KKx). (2016)
Court: District Court, C.D. California
Number: infdco20160525977
Visitors: 10
Filed: May 24, 2016
Latest Update: May 24, 2016
Summary: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME [24] OTIS D. WRIGHT, II , District Judge . On April 21, 2016, three days after its response to Plaintiff Ashley Graham's Complaint was due, Defendant Synchrony Bank moved to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. (ECF No. 16.) The next day, Defendant filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B), 1 in which it argued that its late-filed Motion to Dismiss should be accep
Summary: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME [24] OTIS D. WRIGHT, II , District Judge . On April 21, 2016, three days after its response to Plaintiff Ashley Graham's Complaint was due, Defendant Synchrony Bank moved to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. (ECF No. 16.) The next day, Defendant filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B), 1 in which it argued that its late-filed Motion to Dismiss should be accept..
More
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME [24]
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II, District Judge.
On April 21, 2016, three days after its response to Plaintiff Ashley Graham's Complaint was due, Defendant Synchrony Bank moved to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. (ECF No. 16.) The next day, Defendant filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B),1 in which it argued that its late-filed Motion to Dismiss should be accepted because the delay was the result of excusable neglect. (ECF No. 24.) On May 17, 2016, Plaintiff filed a response stating that Defendant's request was moot in light of the fact that Defendant has already responded to the Complaint.
The Court construes Plaintiff's response as a non-opposition to Defendant's Motion. Moreover, after considering the four-factor test for whether neglect is excusable, see Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993), the Court is satisfied that an extension of time is warranted under Rule 6(b)(1)(B). For these reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion and deems Defendant's Motion to Dismiss timely filed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Rule 6(b)(1)(B) provides: "When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect."
Source: Leagle
