Dolores Riley et al v. Manor Care of Hemet CA, LLC et al

Filing 30

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge Jesus G. Bernal (1) DENYING Defendants Ex Parte Application 22 ; (2) STRIKING Defendants Untimely Motion to Dismiss 18 ; and (3) GRANTING the Moving Defendants an Extension until May 13, 2015, to File an Answer to the Complaint: (see document image for specifics). Although the Court declines to allow a late-filed motion to dismiss, the Court recognizes the importance of allowing the Moving Defendants to file their answers to the complaint. Accordingly, the Court will allow the Moving Defendants to file their answers despite the expiration of the time within which to do so pursuant to Rule 81(c)(2). The Court GRANTS Defendants HCR Manor Care Services, LLC; Heartland Employment Services LLC; and HCR Healthcare, LLC, an extension until May 13, 2015, to file their answers to the complaint. IT IS SO ORDERED. (ad)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No.

Date

EDCV 15-00758 JGB (JPRx)

May 5, 2015

Title Dolores Riley, et al. v. Manor Care of Hemet CA, LLC, et al.

Present: The Honorable

JESUS G. BERNAL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

MAYNOR GALVEZ

Not Reported

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s):

Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s):

None Present

None Present

Proceedings: 

Order (1) DENYING Defendants’ Ex Parte Application (Doc. No. 22);
(2) STRIKING Defendants’ Untimely Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 18); and
(3) GRANTING the Moving Defendants an Extension until May 13, 2015,
to File an Answer to the Complaint (IN CHAMBERS)

Before the Court is an Ex Parte Application for Relief under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 6(b) filed by Defendants HCR Manor Care Services, LLC; Heartland Employment
Services, LLC; and HCR Healthcare, LLC (collectively, the “Moving Defendants”) on April 29,
2015. (“Ex Parte,” Doc. No. 22.) The Ex Parte seeks a retroactive extension of time in which to
file a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.
Plaintiffs filed their complaint on April 18, 2014, in California Superior Court for the
County of Riverside. (Doc. No. 1-1 at 5-22.) In February and March 2015, after the originally
named defendants had answered the complaint, Plaintiffs substituted the Moving Defendants for
three Doe defendants. (Doc. No. 1-1 at 82-89.) On April 7, 2015, the Moving Defendants
demurred and moved to strike certain portions of the complaint. (Doc. No. 1-1 at 100-27.) On
April 17, 2015, Defendant HCR Manor Care Services, LLC, removed the case to federal court on
diversity grounds. (Doc. No. 1.)
In relevant part, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 81(c)(2) requires as follows:
A defendant who did not answer before removal must answer or
present other defenses or objections under these rules within the
longest of these periods:
(A) 21 days after receiving . . . a copy of the initial pleading
stating the claim for relief;
Page 1 of 2

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk MG

(B) 21 days after being served with the summons for an
initial pleading on file at the time of service; or
(C) 7 days after the notice of removal is filed.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(c)(2). The three Moving Defendants were served with the summons and
complaint on March 11, 19, and 27, 2015. (Doc. No. 1-1 at 91, 96, 131.) Thus the deadlines
pursuant to Rule 81(c)(2)(A) and (B) have long since passed. Therefore, pursuant to Rule
81(c)(2)(C), the Moving Defendants had until Friday, April 24, 2015, to answer the complaint or
file a motion to dismiss the complaint. The Moving Defendants missed that deadline by three
days, filing a motion to dismiss on Monday, April 27, 2015. (Doc. No. 18.)
The Moving Defendants now ask the Court to allow them a retroactive extension of the
deadline by which to file their motion to dismiss the complaint. Pursuant to Rule 6(b)(1)(B),
“the court may, for good cause, extend the time . . . on motion made after the time has expired if
the party failed to act because of excusable neglect.” Defendants’ counsel explains that he
missed the deadline because he carelessly confused the deadline in this case with a
misinterpreted deadline in another case. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs will not be prejudiced
by allowing a late-filed motion to dismiss; that may be so, but the Court questions whether
Defendants would be so quick to ignore a missed deadline if, for example, Plaintiffs had
attempted to remand three days beyond the deadline to do so. Moreover, Defendants willingly
removed this case from state court and thus controlled the applicable timeline. Defendants were
not required to remove this case to federal court; however, now having elected to do so, they are
responsible for being properly apprised of the rules and procedures of this Court. The Court
advises the parties to familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local
Rules of the Central District of California, and this Court’s Standing Order.
The Court declines to exercise its discretion, pursuant to Rule 6(b)(1)(B), to grant a
retroactive extension of the applicable deadline under Rule 81(c)(2). The Moving Defendants’
Ex Parte Application is DENIED. (Doc. No. 22.) Accordingly, the Moving Defendants’ motion
to dismiss was untimely filed, and the Court therefore STRIKES that motion from the Court’s
docket. (Doc. No. 18.)
Although the Court declines to allow a late-filed motion to dismiss, the Court recognizes
the importance of allowing the Moving Defendants to file their answers to the complaint.
Accordingly, the Court will allow the Moving Defendants to file their answers despite the
expiration of the time within which to do so pursuant to Rule 81(c)(2). The Court GRANTS
Defendants HCR Manor Care Services, LLC; Heartland Employment Services, LLC; and HCR
Healthcare, LLC, an extension until May 13, 2015, to file their answers to the complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Page 2 of 2

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk MG