Filed: Oct. 06, 2017
Latest Update: Oct. 06, 2017
Summary: SECOND STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR ALL DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND WITHIN 28 DAYS; ORDER SHEILA K. OBERTO , Magistrate Judge . Defendants David Rodriguez, Arturo Rodriguez, Rosa Rodriguez, and Leonor Sanchez Rodriguez (the "Defendants") and Plaintiff, Jose Acosta (the "Plaintiff") hereby stipulate by and through their respective counsel to extend the time for all Defendants to respond to Plaintiff's Complaint to and including October 12, 2017. 1. WHEREAS, Defendants Rosa Rodriguez and
Summary: SECOND STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR ALL DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND WITHIN 28 DAYS; ORDER SHEILA K. OBERTO , Magistrate Judge . Defendants David Rodriguez, Arturo Rodriguez, Rosa Rodriguez, and Leonor Sanchez Rodriguez (the "Defendants") and Plaintiff, Jose Acosta (the "Plaintiff") hereby stipulate by and through their respective counsel to extend the time for all Defendants to respond to Plaintiff's Complaint to and including October 12, 2017. 1. WHEREAS, Defendants Rosa Rodriguez and L..
More
SECOND STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR ALL DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND WITHIN 28 DAYS; ORDER
SHEILA K. OBERTO, Magistrate Judge.
Defendants David Rodriguez, Arturo Rodriguez, Rosa Rodriguez, and Leonor Sanchez Rodriguez (the "Defendants") and Plaintiff, Jose Acosta (the "Plaintiff") hereby stipulate by and through their respective counsel to extend the time for all Defendants to respond to Plaintiff's Complaint to and including October 12, 2017.
1. WHEREAS, Defendants Rosa Rodriguez and Leonor Sanchez Rodriguez were allegedly served on 8/13/17, with a response due date of 9/5/17, and
2. WHEREAS, Defendants David Rodriguez and Arturo Rodriguez were allegedly served on 8/24/17, with a response due date of 9/14/17, and
3. WHEREAS, On 9/14/17, the Parties stipulated to extend all Defendants time to respond to October 3, 2017, and
4. WHEREAS, LR 144 allows for an extended response date of up to 28 days, and
5. WHEREAS, the full 28 days to respond would extend to October 12, 2017, and
6. WHEREAS, the Mandatory Scheduling Conference is set for 11/2/2017, and the Joint Statement would be due 7 days prior, and
7. WHEREAS, the Parties have been actively engaged in discussions about resolution of the matters contained in Plaintiff's Complaint, and wish to conserve party and court resources, and believe that a full 28 day extension of time will enable that to happen.
8. NOW THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AND STIPULATE pursuant to L.R. 144(a) that all Defendants' time to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint, currently due on October 3, 2017, shall be extended to October 12, 2017, with Joint Statement due within 7 days of the currently scheduled Mandatory Scheduling Conference.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
ORDER
By stipulation of the parties filed September 14, 2017, pursuant to Rule 144(a) of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Defendants David Rodriguez, Arturo Rodriguez, Rosa Rodriguez, and Leonor Sanchez Rodriguez (the "Defendants") were to respond to Plaintiff Jose Acosta's complaint no later than October 3, 2017. (Doc. 8.) The parties filed the above "Second Stipulation for Extension of Time for All Defendants to Respond Within 28 Days" on October 5, 2017— two days after Defendants' responsive pleading deadline.
Although the Court may extend time to file a responsive pleading after the deadline has expired because of "excusable neglect," Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B), no such excusable neglect has been articulated—much less shown—here. Notwithstanding this deficiency, given the absence of bad faith or prejudice to Plaintiff (as evidenced by the parties' agreement to the extension of time), and in view of the liberal construction of Fed. R. Civ. 6(b)(1) to effectuate the general purpose of seeing that cases are tried on the merits, see Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258-59 (9th Cir. 2010), the Court GRANTS the parties' stipulated request. The parties are cautioned that future post hoc request for extensions of time will be viewed with disfavor.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all Defendants must respond to Plaintiff's Complaint on or before October 12, 2017.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
