Weeks v. Union Pacific Railroad Company

Filing 32

ORDER on Plaintiff's 31 Ex Parte Application to Extend Time, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 4/10/2015. (IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's ex parte application for additional time is GRANTED; 2. Plaintiff may file an opposition to Defendant's motion for summary judgment on or by 4/20/2015; and 3. Defendant may file a reply to Plaintiff's opposition on or by 4/27/2015.) (Gaumnitz, R)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

TREVOR WEEKS,

9
10
11
12

CASE NO. 1:13-CV-1641 AWI JLT
Plaintiff

v.

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE
APPLICATION TO EXTEND TIME

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO.,
(Doc. No. 31)
Defendant

13
14

Trial in this matter is set for August 4, 2015, and the pre-trial conference is set for June 3,

15

2015. On March 2, 2015, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. Hearing on this

16

motion was set for April 6, 2015. On March 31, 2015, the Court took the motion under

17

submission; Plaintiff had not filed an opposition.

18

On April 9, 2015, Plaintiff‟s counsel filed an ex parte application to extend time to file an

19

opposition. See Doc. No. 31. Plaintiff‟s application indicates that Plaintiff‟s counsel is effectively

20

operating as a solo practitioner, he was experiencing family and health related issues around the

21

time that Defendant‟s motion was filed, his legal assistant (who is the only other person in the

22

office) was sick for several days near the beginning of March, his legal assistant did not notice that

23

Defendant had filed the motion, and counsel relies on his legal assistant to print and keep track of

24

motions filed electronically. See id. Plaintiff‟s counsel argues that there is no harm to Defendant,

25

there only is a minimal delay that will not affect proceedings because trial is set for August 2015,

26

the reason for the delay was an administrative error, and that he is acting in good faith. See id.

27
28

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1) provides, “When an act may or must be done
within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time . . . on motion made after

1

the time has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro.

2

6(b)(1)(B). “„Good cause‟ is a non-rigorous standard,” and Rule 6(b)(1) is “liberally construed to

3

effectuate the general purposes of seeing that cases are tried on the merits.” Ahanchian v. Xenon

4

Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2010). To determine whether there is “excusable

5

neglect,” courts consider: (1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing party, (2) the length of the

6

delay, (3) the reason for the delay, and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith. Warkentin v.

7

Federated Life Ins. Co., 594 Fed. Appx. 900 (9th Cir. 2014).

8

Here, the Court is satisfied that Plaintiff has demonstrated excusable neglect and good

9

cause. The Court sees no danger of prejudicing Defendant since only an opposition to a fully

10

briefed summary judgment motion is at issue. There will be some delay in proceedings, but the

11

delay will be only a matter of several weeks, and it appears (at this point at least) that the trial and

12

pre-trial conference dates will remain in place. The reason for the delay is due to administrative

13

error, and no bad faith is apparent. Given the non-rigorous standards involved for “good cause,”

14

the purposes of Rule 6(b)(1), and the declaration of Plaintiff‟s counsel, the Court will grant

15

Plaintiff‟s motion and extend the time to file an opposition.

16
17

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

18

1.

Plaintiff‟s ex parte application for additional time (Doc. No. 31) is GRANTED;

19

2.

Plaintiff may file an opposition to Defendant‟s motion for summary judgment on or by

20
21

April 20, 2015; and
3.

Defendant may file a reply to Plaintiff‟s opposition on or by April 27, 2015.1

22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 10, 2015
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28

1

If, after having reviewed the submissions of the parties, the Court determines that a hearing on Defendant‟s motion
would be beneficial, the Court will set a hearing date at that time. Otherwise, the Court will decide the matter on the
papers after receiving Defendant‟s reply. See Local Rule 230.

2