Ricks et al v. Menlo Worldwide Government Services, LLC et al

Filing 47

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 8/16/16 ORDERING that The Request for an Extension of time is GRANTED. The court DECLINES to accept the Plaintiff-relators' proposed briefing schedule, but encourages counsel again to attempt resolving their differences.(Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

UNITED STATES ex rel. RICHARD
RICKS and MARCELO CUELLAR,

12

No. 2:13-cv-00539-KJM-AC
ORDER

Plaintiffs,
13
v.
14
15
16

MENLO WORLDWIDE GOVERNMENT
SERVICES, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18
19

Service of the first amended complaint was completed on defendants Estes

20

Express Lines, Inc. and Estes Forwarding Worldwide, LLC on July 15, 2016. ECF Nos. 38 & 39.

21

On August 5, 2016, these defendants applied ex parte for an extension of time to file a responsive

22

pleading. ECF No. 40. The attorney responsible for preparing the pleading, Thomas Coulter, who

23

has not yet appeared or applied for admission pro hac vice, explained that he had been unable to

24

prepare a timely response because he has been busy with other matters and has a pre-planned

25

vacation. See Coulter Decl., ECF No. 41. Mr. Coulter also reported that Michael Hirst, counsel

26

for the plaintiff-relators, had agreed to an extension of time, but the two were unable to finalize

27

language for a stipulated request. See id.

28
1

1

In response, the plaintiffs filed an opposition, and Mr. Hirst attached a declaration

2

with the details of his abortive negotiations with Mr. Coulter, relating even that some of his

3

responses were delayed because he had turned off his cell phone during the 4:00 p.m. showing of

4

Café Society at the Varsity Theater in Davis, California. Opp’n, ECF No. 44; Hirst Decl., ECF

5

No. 45. In short, Mr. Hirst and his clients agreed to the extension, but problems arose during

6

negotiations of an extended briefing schedule on the defendants’ anticipated motion to dismiss.

7

The parties seem to agree that an extension of time would harm no one, but the plaintiff-relators

8

ask the court to hold them and the defendants to a particular briefing schedule for the planned

9

motion to dismiss.

10

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this District allow the

11

court to extend deadlines for the filing of responsive pleadings. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1); E.D.

12

Cal. L.R. 144. “This rule, like all the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, is to be liberally construed

13

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

14

Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258–59 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation, quotation marks, and alterations

15

omitted). Requests for extensions of time of this sort are normally granted unless doing so would

16

cause prejudice to an adverse party or the request was advanced in bad faith. Id.

17

The court can discern no bad faith or prejudice in the parties’ filings. The request

18

for an extension of time is granted. The court declines to accept the plaintiff-relators’ proposed

19

briefing schedule, but encourages counsel again to attempt resolving their differences.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 16, 2016

22
23
24

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28
2