Acosta v. Citi Tire LLC et al

Filing 7

ORDER ENLARGING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT, 6 . Defendants Citi Tire and Cha shall respond to Plaintiff's Complaint on or before July 16, 2018. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 6/25/2018. (Timken, A)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6

JOSE ACOSTA,

7

CASE NO. 1:18-cv-00509-LJO-SKO
Plaintiff,

8

ORDER ENLARGING TIME TO
RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

v.
(Doc. 6)

9

CITI TIRE LLC; et al.

10

Defendants.

11

_____________________________________/

12
Plaintiff Jose Acosta (“Plaintiff”) filed his complaint on April 12, 2018. (Doc. 1.) Defendant

13

14 Citi Tire LLC (“Citi Tire”) was personally served on April 18, 2018, and Defendant Lucinda Yer
15 Cha, Trustee of the Soua Cha Family Trust (“Cha”), was served by substitute service on April 24,
1
16 2018. (Docs. 4, 5.) Defendants’ responsive pleading were therefore due twenty-one (21) days

17 after service, or May 9, 2018, for Defendant Citi Tire and May 15, 2018, for Defendant Cha. Fed.
18 R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(c), 12(a)(1)(A)(i).
The parties filed a “Stipulation for Extension of Time for [Citi Tire] and [Cha] to Respond

19

20 to Complaint” (Doc. 6) on June 22, 2018—forty-five (45) days after Defendant Citi Tire’s
21 responsive pleading deadline and thirty-nine (39) days after Defendant Cha’s responsive pleading
22 deadline. Although the Court may extend time to file a responsive pleading after the deadline has
23 expired because of “excusable neglect,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B), no such excusable neglect has
24 been articulated—much less shown—here. Notwithstanding this deficiency, given the absence of
25 bad faith or prejudice to Plaintiff (as evidenced by the parties’ agreement to the extension of time),
26 and in view of the liberal construction of Fed. R. Civ. 6(b)(1) to effectuate the general purpose of
27
28

1

The Court notes that Defendant Cha was served by substitute service on April 24, 2018, despite the docket entry
stating that Defendant Cha was served on May 5, 2018. (See Doc. 5.)

1 seeing that cases are tried on the merits, see Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253,
2 1258–59 (9th Cir. 2010), the Court GRANTS the parties’ stipulated request. The parties are
3 cautioned that future post hoc request for extensions of time will be viewed with disfavor.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Citi Tire and Cha shall respond to Plaintiff’s

4

5 Complaint on or before July 16, 2018.
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8 Dated:
9

June 25, 2018

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

.