Peterson v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC

Filing 8

ORDER GRANTING Second Extension of Time for Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC to Respond to Plaintiff's Complaint. Defendant Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC shall file its responsive pleading by no later than June 14, 2017. This extension does not impact or change any event or deadline already set by the Court. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 6/5/2017. (Timken, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

ERIKA PETERSON, individually and on behalf
of all other similarly situated,

13
14
15
16
17

Case No. 1:17-cv-00499-LJO-SKO
ORDER GRANTING SECOND
EXTENSION OF TIME FOR ENHANCED
RECOVERY COMPANY, LLC TO
RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S
COMPLAINT

Plaintiff,
v.
ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY,
LLC,
Defendant.

18
19
20

Plaintiff Erika Peterson filed her complaint on April 7, 2017. (Doc. 1.) On May 17,

21

2017, the parties filed an initial stipulation extending time for Defendant Enhanced Recovery

22

Company, LLC to file its responsive pleading by fourteen (14) days, to May 31, 2017 (the

23

“Stipulation”). (Doc. 5.) Pursuant to Rule 144(a) of the Local Rules of the United States District

24

Court, Eastern District of California (the “Local Rules” or “L.R.”), because the Stipulation was

25

the first request for enlargement of time and was signed on behalf of all parties who have

26

appeared in the action, no Court approval was necessary. L.R. 144(a).

27
28

-1–
ORDER GRANTING SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

The parties filed a “Stipulation for Second Extension of Time for Enhanced Recovery
Company, LLC to Response to Plaintiff’s Complaint,” seeking to extend Defendant’s responsive
pleading to June 14, 2017, on June 1, 2017, one day after Defendant’s responsive pleading
deadline. (Doc. 7.) Although the Court may extend time to file a responsive pleading after the
deadline has expired because of “excusable neglect,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B), no such
excusable neglect has been articulated—much less shown—here.

deficiency, given the absence of bad faith or prejudice to Plaintiff (as evidenced by the parties’
agreement to the extension of time), and in view of the liberal construction of Fed. R. Civ.
6(b)(1) to effectuate the general purpose of seeing that cases are tried on the merits, see
Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258–59 (9th Cir. 2010), the Court GRANTS
the parties’ stipulated request. The parties are cautioned that future post hoc request for
extensions of time will be viewed with disfavor.

13
14
15

Notwithstanding this

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Enhanced Recovery Company,
LLC shall file its responsive pleading by no later than June 14, 2017. This extension does not
impact or change any event or deadline already set by the Court.

16
17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 5, 2017

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2–
ORDER GRANTING SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

.