Mechanix Wear, Inc. et al v. Performance Fabrics, Inc. et al

Filing 32

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS EX PARTE APPLICATION 28 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: Plaintiffs reply is now due on Wednesday, January 24, 2017. The hearing scheduled on the pending motion for forum non conveniens 15 shall be rescheduled to February 6, 2017, at 1:30 p.m. in accord with the parties stipulation. (lc). Modified on 1/19/2017 .(lc).

O

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

United States District Court
Central District of California

8
9
10
11

MECHANIX WEAR, INC., a California

12

Corporation; ZACHARY JERGAN, an

13

individual,

Case № 2:16-cv-09152-ODW (SS)

Plaintiffs,

14
15

ORDER GRANTING

v.

DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE
APPLICATION [28]

16

PERFORMANCE FABRICS, INC., a

17

Michigan Corporation doing business as

18

HEXAMOR; and DOES 1-50,

19

Defendants.

20
21

Defendant submits the pending ex parte application after filing its opposition to

22

Plaintiffs’ motion to remand four days late. (ECF No. 28). Defendant opposes the

23

application. (ECF No. 30.) An opposition is typically due twenty-one days before a

24

hearing on the underlying motion. C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-9. However, this Court has its

25

own rule requiring that when a filing date falls on a Monday holiday, the filing is due

26

on the preceding Friday. Wright L.R. VII.A.1. Defendant did not follow this rule and

27

instead filed its opposition on Tuesday, January 17, 2017, after the Monday, January

28

1

16, 2017 Martin Luther King holiday rather than on Friday, January 13, 2017. (ECF

2

No. 29.)

3

Nevertheless, the Court will consider Defendant’s late filed opposition. Federal

4

Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B) allows a party to make a motion for a filing

5

extension “after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable

6

neglect.” The good cause standard governs the Court’s review of such a motion.

7

Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding that

8

“good cause” is a “non-rigorous standard”). Here, Defendant’s counsel admits that he

9

made a mistake and did not appreciate the Court’s local, local rule. (Kobata Decl. ¶ 5,

10

ECF No. 28.) Defendant has otherwise timely filed during these proceedings and does

11

not appear to have acted in bad faith. Further, there is no evidence that considering

12

the late filing would unduly prejudice Plaintiffs. The actions of Defendant’s counsel

13

amount to excusable neglect, plain and simple.

14

Therefore, in order to effectuate the federal rules’ “general purpose of seeing

15

that cases are tried on the merits,” the Court GRANTS Defendant’s ex parte

16

application.

17

Wednesday, January 24, 2017.

18

for forum non conveniens shall be rescheduled to February 6, 2017, at 1:30 p.m. in

19

accord with the parties’ stipulation. (ECF No. 25.)

Ahanchian, 624 F.3d at 1259.

Plaintiffs reply is now due on

The hearing scheduled on the pending motion

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22

January 19, 2017

23
24
25
26

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28

2