Almanza v. Credit One Bank, N.A.

Filing 9

ORDER GRANTING Stipulated Request to Extend Time to Respond to Initial Complaint. Defendant Credit One Bank, N.A. shall have to and including August 16, 2017, within which to file a responsive pleading. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 8/15/2017. (Timken, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

YOLANDA ALMANZA,
Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

Case No. 1:17-cv-830-DAD-SKO
ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED
REQUEST TO EXTEND TIME TO
RESPOND TO INITIAL COMPLAINT
(Doc. 8)

12
CREDIT ONE BANK, N.A.,
13
14

Defendant.
_____________________________________/

15
16
17

On August 11, 2017, the parties filed a “Stipulation to Extend Time to Respond to

18 Plaintiff’s Complaint” (the “Stipulation”), requesting that the deadline for Defendant Credit One
19 Bank, N.A. (“Defendant”) to respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint be continued to August 16, 2017.
20 (Doc. 8.) The Stipulation states that it is being filed pursuant to “L[ocal] R[ule] 8-3.” (Id. at 1.)
21

The Court calls to the parties’ attention the current version of the Local Rules of the United

22 States District Court, Eastern District of California, effective April 1, 2017 (the “Local Rules” or
23 “L.R.”), which provide in pertinent part:
24
25
26
27
28

(a) Extensions on Stipulation. Unless the filing date has been set by order of the
Court, an initial stipulation extending time for no more than twenty-eight (28)
days to respond to a complaint, cross-claim or counterclaim, or to respond to
interrogatories, requests for admissions, or requests for production of documents
may be filed without approval of the Court if the stipulation is signed on behalf of
all parties who have appeared in the action and are affected by the stipulation. All
other extensions of time must be approved by the Court. No open extensions of
time by stipulation of the parties will be recognized.

1 L.R. 144(a). Pursuant to the Return of Service filed July 12, 2017, Defendant was served on June
2 26, 2017. (Doc. 7.)

Defendant’s responsive pleading was therefore due twenty-one (21) days

3 after service -- on July 17, 2017. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i). The parties’ stipulated extension
4 to August 16, 2017, is a 30-day enlargement of time that requires Court approval under L.R.
5 144(a).
6

More importantly, the Stipulation was filed on August 11, 2017, over three weeks after

7 Defendant’s responsive pleading deadline had expired. Although the Court may extend time to
8 file a responsive pleading after the deadline has expired because of “excusable neglect,” Fed. R.
9 Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B), no such excusable neglect has been articulated—much less shown—here.
10 Notwithstanding this deficiency, given the absence of bad faith or prejudice to Plaintiff (as
11 evidenced by the parties’ agreement to the extension of time), and in view of the liberal
12 construction of Fed. R. Civ. 6(b)(1) to effectuate the general purpose of seeing that cases are tried
13 on the merits, see Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258–59 (9th Cir. 2010), the
14 Court GRANTS the parties’ stipulated request. The parties are cautioned that future post hoc
15 request for extensions of time will be viewed with disfavor.
16

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Credit One Bank, N.A. shall have to and

17 including August 16, 2017, within which to file a responsive pleading.
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20 Dated:
21

August 15, 2017

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

.