Hayford v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC et al

Filing 27

ORDER: IT IS ORDERED denying 25 Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time. Plaintiff has missed the deadline to respond to Defendant Nationstar Mortgage, LLC's Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff shall file a response to Defendant Aerotek, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 23 ) by March 3, 2017. (See attached Order for complete details). Signed by Judge John J Tuchi on 2/28/17.(JAMA) Modified on 3/1/2017 to add WO (JAMA).

1

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Terri Hayford,
Plaintiff,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-16-04480-PHX-JJT

Nationstar Mortgage LLC, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

At issue is Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 25), which Plaintiff

16

states Defendants oppose. Defendant Nationstar Mortgage, LLC (“Nationstar”) filed a

17

Response in Opposition (Doc. 26).

18

On January 18, 2017, Nationstar filed a Motion to Dismiss, Strike Collective

19

Action Claims, and Compel Arbitration, or in the Alternative to Stay Proceedings

20

(Doc. 12) based on an arbitration agreement Plaintiff allegedly entered into with

21

Nationstar. Although Plaintiff’s response was due on February 6, 2017, Plaintiff filed no

22

response. More than two weeks later, Plaintiff filed the present Motion for Extension of

23

Time, asking for an extension until March 16, 2017 to respond to Nationstar’s Motion to

24

Dismiss because “Plaintiff’s counsel have been involved in other matters and have not

25

had sufficient time to prepare Plaintiff’s response.” (Doc. 25 at 2.)

26

Plaintiff filed her Motion for Extension of Time several weeks after her response

27

to Nationstar’s Motion to Dismiss was due. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

28

6(b)(1)(B), the Court may only grant the extension on a showing of excusable neglect,

1

evaluating (1) the reason for the delay, (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact

2

on judicial proceedings, (3) whether Plaintiff acted in good faith, and (4) the danger of

3

prejudice to Nationstar. See Briones v. Riviera Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d 379, 381 (9th

4

Cir. 1997) (citing Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380,

5

395 (1993)). In her Motion for Extension of Time, Plaintiff fails to address these factors

6

other than to say that her counsel has been busy. Plaintiff brought this lawsuit, and

7

involvement by Plaintiff’s counsel in other matters is not good cause not to prosecute it,

8

let alone excusable neglect. See, e.g., Pinero Schroeder v. Fed. Nat’l Mortgage Ass’n,

9

574 F.2d 1117, 1118 (1st Cir. 1978) (“We do not consider the fact that an attorney is busy

10

on other matters to fall into the definition of excusable neglect. Most attorneys are busy

11

most of the time and they must organize their work so as to be able to meet the time

12

requirements of matters they are handling or suffer the consequences.”); Davis v.

13

Johnson, No. CV F 03-5935 LJO SMS, 2007 WL 1834846, at *2-3 (E.D. Cal. June 26,

14

2007).

15

Because Plaintiff fails to show excusable neglect for her tardiness, the Court must

16

deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time as to her response to Nationstar’s Motion

17

to Dismiss. Under Local Rule 7.2(i), Nationstar will be entitled to summary disposition of

18

its Motion to Dismiss, the practical effect of which will be arbitration of Plaintiff’s claims

19

pursuant to the arbitration agreement she entered into with Nationstar. The result of the

20

Court’s present ruling is thus not manifestly unjust to Plaintiff. The Court will address

21

Nationstar’s Motion to Dismiss in a separate Order.

22

On February 9, 2017, Defendant Aerotek, Inc. filed a Motion to Dismiss and

23

Compel Individual Arbitration or, in the Alternative, Stay the Proceedings (Doc. 23)

24

based on a separate arbitration agreement Plaintiff allegedly entered into with Aerotek.

25

Instead of filing a response, Plaintiff filed the present Motion for Extension of Time.

26

Under Rule 6(b)(1)(A), the Court may grant the extension for good cause. As stated

27

above, however, a busy attorney does not constitute good cause for the requested delay.

28

As a result, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time as to her

-2-

1

response to Aerotek’s Motion to Dismiss and require Plaintiff to file her response by

2

March 3, 2017.

3

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time

4

(Doc. 25). Plaintiff has missed the deadline to respond to Defendant Nationstar

5

Mortgage, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff shall file a response to Defendant Aerotek,

6

Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 23) by March 3, 2017.

7

Dated this 28th day of February, 2017.

8
9
10

Honorable John J. Tuchi
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-