Order Re: Stipulation to Extend Time to Respond to Initial Complaint By More Than 30 Days

(Doc. 10)

SHEILA K. OBERTO, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Jose Acosta ("Plaintiff") filed its complaint on May 14, 2019. (Doc. 1.) On June 5, 2019, Plaintiff and Defendant Congregation of Rogationists ("Defendant") stipulated to extend the time for Defendant to respond to the complaint to July 19, 2019. (See Doc. 5.)

The parties filed a second "Stipulation to Extend Time" for Defendant to respond to the complaint (Doc. 10) on July 24, 2019—five days after Defendant's 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 Defendant Congregation of Rogationists shall respond to Plaintiff's complaint on or before August 16, 2019.

IT IS SO ORDERED.