Deckers Outdoor Corporation v. J.C. Penney Company Inc.

Filing 24

ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION 21 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: J.C. Penney allowed to answer or otherwise respond to first amended complaint by August 6, 2014. (lc). Modified on 7/16/2014. (lc).

O

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

United States District Court
Central District of California

8
9
10
11

DECKERS OUTDOOR CORPORATION, Case No. 2:14-cv-02565-ODW(MANx)
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE

14

J.C. PENNEY COMPANY INC.; DOES

15

APPLICATION [21]

1–10, inclusive,
Defendants.

16
17

After Defendant J.C. Penney Company Inc. had moved to dismiss Plaintiff

18

Deckers Outdoor Corporation’s Complaint for failure to state a claim, Deckers mooted

19

the issue by filing an amended complaint. (ECF No. 18.) J.C. Penney sought an

20

extension of time to respond to the First Amended Complaint from Deckers, but

21

Deckers declined to stipulate to an extension. This Ex Parte Application ensued in

22

which J.C. Penney seeks an extension until August 6, 2014, to respond.

23

No. 21.) The Court GRANTS that Application, extending the response deadline until

24

August 6, 2014.

(ECF

25

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(a)(3) provides that when a party files an

26

amended pleading, the opposing party must respond “within the time remaining to

27

respond to the original pleading or within 14 days after service of the amended

28

pleading, whichever is later.” If a party wishes to extend a deadline by which it must

1

respond, the court may extend the deadline for “good cause” if the party moves for the

2

extension before expiration of the period. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A).

3

J.C. Penney had already filed a full motion to dismiss Deckers’s original

4

Complaint when Deckers mooted the issue by filing its First Amended Complaint.

5

Deckers therefore has only 14 days to respond to the amended complaint per Rule

6

4(a)(3). Since J.C. Penney wishes to file another dismissal motion, it seeks additional

7

time, citing its counsel’s busy schedule and Deckers’s alleged bad-faith conduct in not

8

agreeing to an extension.

9

Deckers of course opposes the extension, arguing that J.C. Penney has failed to

10

establish the requisite good cause for extending the response deadline. It contends

11

that a busy schedule does not satisfy the standard.

12

An ex parte application such as this one rarely satisfies the elements set forth in

13

Mission Power Engineering Co. v. Continental Casualty Co., 883 F. Supp. 488 (C.D.

14

Cal. 1995). But without the opposing party stipulating to the extension, a regularly

15

noticed motion would unnecessarily elongate the dispute. The Court therefore does

16

not fault J.C. Penney for filing this request as an ex parte application—especially

17

since Deckers was well aware of the request in advance of the filing date.

18

Given that J.C. Penney now has to revise its previously filed dismissal motion

19

solely because Deckers chose to file its First Amended Complaint, J.C. Penney should

20

not be unnecessarily prejudiced by the rather short 14-day response window. The

21

Court therefore GRANTS the Application and allows J.C. Penney to answer or

22

otherwise respond by August 6, 2014. (ECF No. 21.)

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25

July 15, 2014

26
27
28

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2