Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION v. CANYON WILLOW OWNERS ASSOCIATION, 2:16-cv-00203-JCM-CWH. (2017)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20170118f41 Visitors: 3
Filed: Jan. 17, 2017
Latest Update: Jan. 17, 2017
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. MAHAN , District Judge . Presently before the court is plaintiff Federal National Mortgage Association's response to this court's December 28, 2016, order to show cause why defendant Canyon Willow Owners Association's motion to dismiss the complaint should not be granted. (ECF No. 25). Excusable neglect is an "elastic concept" that is determined by considering, inter alia: "the danger of prejudice to the [party not under scrutiny], the length of the delay and its potential
More

ORDER

Presently before the court is plaintiff Federal National Mortgage Association's response to this court's December 28, 2016, order to show cause why defendant Canyon Willow Owners Association's motion to dismiss the complaint should not be granted. (ECF No. 25).

Excusable neglect is an "elastic concept" that is determined by considering, inter alia: "the danger of prejudice to the [party not under scrutiny], the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant, and whether the movant acted in good faith." Briones v. Riviera Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d 379, 381 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380, 391-93, 95 (1993) (discussing "excusable neglect" in the context of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)).

Although plaintiff's counsel admits the omission in failing to timely respond to the motion to dismiss, this court, upon review of plaintiff's response to the previous order and defendant's lack of relevant filings, finds that: (1) defendant suffered little prejudice; (2) the plaintiff did not act in bad faith; (3) the delay, in light of discussions between the parties and the case's progression, is not substantial; and (4) plaintiff has signaled an intent to simply refile its complaint if the present one is dismissed without prejudice. (ECF No. 25); see also Briones, 116 F.3d at 381.

Therefore, plaintiff has exhibited excusable neglect in its failure to file a response to the motion to dismiss. Thus, plaintiff will be allowed to file a response to defendant's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 13).

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that plaintiff shall file a response to defendant's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 13) within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant will have seven (7) days from the date plaintiff files its response to submit its reply.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer