Asia Economic Institute et al v. Xcentric Ventures LLC et al

Filing 172

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' REQUEST TO WAIVE ORAL ARGUMENT ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 164 AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF by Judge Stephen V. Wilson: granting 164 Request to Waive (bp)

Asia Economic Institute et al v. Xcentric Ventures LLC et al

Doc. 172

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs Asia Economic Institute, LLC and its principals, Raymond Mobrez and Iliana Llaneras (collectively, "Plaintiffs") brought this action on January 27, 2010. The case was removed to this UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ASIA ECONOMIC INSTITUTE, a California limited liability company, RAYMOND MOBREZ, an individual, and ILIANA LLANERAS, an individual, Plaintiffs, v. XCENTRIC VENTURES, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company, d/b/a/ as BADBUSINESS BUREAU and/or BADBUSINESSBUREAU.COM, and/or RIP OFF REPORT and/or RIPOFF REPORT.COM; BAD BUSINESS BUREAU, LLC, organized and existing under the laws of St. Kitts/Nevis, West Indies; EDWARD MAGEDSON, an individual, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No: 10-cv-01360 SVW (PJW) ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' REQUEST TO WAIVE ORAL ARGUMENT ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [164] AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF [165]

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Court in February 2010 on the grounds of both federal question and diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiffs generally allege that Defendants

Xcentric Ventures, LLC, Bad Business Bureau, LLC, and Edward Magedson (collectively "Defendants") own and operate a website at www.RipoffReport.com and that defamatory comments regarding Plaintiffs were posted on the website. At a hearing held on September 20, 2010, the Court ordered Defendants to file a motion for summary judgment on all remaining counts. Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment as to Entire Case on September 27, 2010. [Docket no. 145]. Plaintiffs' opposition to this motion was due by October 4, 2010. In the interim, Defendants filed a Motion to Strike (which included Anti-SLAPP allegations) and two separate Motions for Sanctions Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. [Docket nos. 154, 157, 158]. While Plaintiffs did not file an opposition to the motion for summary judgment per se, they did file a Request for Judicial Notice in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on October 4. [Docket no. 159]. Plaintiffs also filed two timely declarations on October 4. [Docket nos. 160-61]. Subsequently, Plaintiffs filed an additional untimely declaration on October 5 with several exhibits attached. [Docket no. 162]. Plaintiffs also filed an untimely Statement of Genuine Issues in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Summary Judgment as to Entire Case on October 6. [Docket no. 163]. On October 6, 2010, Defendants filed a Request to Waive Oral Argument on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. [Docket no. 164]. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to this request in which Plaintiffs also contained a Request for Enlargement of Time to File Brief,

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

seeking additional time to file a more robust opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment. [Docket no. 165]. For the reasons stated herein, both the Request to Waive Oral Argument and the Request to Enlarge Time are DENIED. However, the Court will accept the Plaintiffs' filings made on October 5 and 6, 2010.

II. DEFENDANTS' REQUEST TO WAIVE ORAL ARGUMENT Local Rule 7-15 provides that "The Court may dispense with oral argument on any motion except where an oral hearing is required by statute, the F.R.Civ.P. or these Local Rules." Defendants contend that the Court should exercise its discretion to dispense with oral argument here because their Motion for Summary Judgment is unopposed. The Court declines to do so. While Plaintiffs have not filed a detailed opposition to the summary judgment motion, Plaintiffs have filed declarations, a request for judicial notice, and a separate statement in opposition. [Docket no. 159]. In their filings, Plaintiffs have identified the areas in which they believe there are material disputes sufficient to deny summary judgment. Thus, the motion is not unopposed as Defendants maintain. While the Plaintiffs' additional filings on October 5 and 6 were slightly untimely, there is no prejudicial effect to admitting them. Defendants did not have an additional filing imminently pending at the time of the filings, and ample time remained for Defendants to review them before filing their Reply, which was not required to be submitted until October 12. The Court believes that a hearing on the motion will be of benefit and oral argument will not be waived.

3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 III. PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF Depending on the circumstances and court discretion, Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1) permits extensions of time to file briefs for good cause. Rule 6(1)(A) permits such extensions "with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before the original time or its extension expires." However, where a deadline has already passed, Rule 6(b)(1)(B) permits extensions only "on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect." Here, Plaintiffs have not identified a sufficient basis for granting an enlargement of time. Rather, Plaintiffs cite only the fact that "Defendants filed 3 additional motions during the one week that Plaintiffs were given to file their opposition to the motion for summary judgment that were not expressly ordered by the Court." (Pl. Req. for Enl. at 1). The Court is not persuaded that Defendants' allegedly aggressive tactics justified the Plaintiffs' inability to meet deadlines or that excusable neglect can be found here. At the very least, Plaintiffs could have petitioned the Court for an extension prior to the deadline's passing. All of Defendants' motions to which Plaintiffs now object were filed on or before September 30, leaving Plaintiffs several days to petition the Court for an enlargement prior to the October 4 deadline. In any event, Plaintiffs did file a Request for Judicial Notice in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, several declarations, and a Statement of Genuine Issues. The Court has accepted these filings in opposition to the motion for summary judgment despite the fact that several were untimely. 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

The Court will not grant an enlargement, nor will it accept additional untimely filings in opposition.

IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES both Defendants' Request to Waive Oral Argument and Plaintiffs' Request for Enlargement of Time to File Brief. However, the Court will consider the additional filings made by Plaintiffs on October 5 and 6 in entertaining Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as to Entire Case. The hearing remains scheduled for Monday, November 1, 2010 at 1:30 p.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:

October 25, 2010

_________________________________ STEPHEN V. WILSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5