Filed: Jan. 19, 2017
Latest Update: Jan. 19, 2017
Summary: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE APPLICATION [28] OTIS D. WRIGHT, II , District Judge . Defendant submits the pending ex parte application after filing its opposition to Plaintiffs' motion to remand four days late. (ECF No. 28). Defendant opposes the application. (ECF No. 30.) An opposition is typically due twenty-one days before a hearing on the underlying motion. C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-9. However, this Court has its own rule requiring that when a filing date falls on a Monday holiday, the fi
Summary: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE APPLICATION [28] OTIS D. WRIGHT, II , District Judge . Defendant submits the pending ex parte application after filing its opposition to Plaintiffs' motion to remand four days late. (ECF No. 28). Defendant opposes the application. (ECF No. 30.) An opposition is typically due twenty-one days before a hearing on the underlying motion. C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-9. However, this Court has its own rule requiring that when a filing date falls on a Monday holiday, the fil..
More
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE APPLICATION [28]
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II, District Judge.
Defendant submits the pending ex parte application after filing its opposition to Plaintiffs' motion to remand four days late. (ECF No. 28). Defendant opposes the application. (ECF No. 30.) An opposition is typically due twenty-one days before a hearing on the underlying motion. C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-9. However, this Court has its own rule requiring that when a filing date falls on a Monday holiday, the filing is due on the preceding Friday. Wright L.R. VII.A.1. Defendant did not follow this rule and instead filed its opposition on Tuesday, January 17, 2017, after the Monday, January 16, 2017 Martin Luther King holiday rather than on Friday, January 13, 2017. (ECF No. 29.)
Nevertheless, the Court will consider Defendant's late filed opposition. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B) allows a party to make a motion for a filing extension "after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect." The good cause standard governs the Court's review of such a motion. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding that "good cause" is a "non-rigorous standard"). Here, Defendant's counsel admits that he made a mistake and did not appreciate the Court's local, local rule. (Kobata Decl. ¶ 5, ECF No. 28.) Defendant has otherwise timely filed during these proceedings and does not appear to have acted in bad faith. Further, there is no evidence that considering the late filing would unduly prejudice Plaintiffs. The actions of Defendant's counsel amount to excusable neglect, plain and simple.
Therefore, in order to effectuate the federal rules' "general purpose of seeing that cases are tried on the merits," the Court GRANTS Defendant's ex parte application. Ahanchian, 624 F.3d at 1259. Plaintiffs reply is now due on Wednesday, January 24, 2017. The hearing scheduled on the pending motion for forum non conveniens shall be rescheduled to February 6, 2017, at 1:30 p.m. in accord with the parties' stipulation. (ECF No. 25.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
