Mackell v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage et al

Filing 36

ORDER GRANTING 33 MOTION TO FILE A LATE BRIEF. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 12/9/2016. (blflc4, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/10/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 JOY MACKELL, Case No. 16-cv-04202-BLF Plaintiff, 8 v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO FILE A LATE BRIEF 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, et al., [Re: ECF 33] Defendants. 12 13 Plaintiff Joy Mackell (“Mackell”) moves the Court for leave to file a late opposition to 14 Defendants’ motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). ECF 33. Mackell argues that there is 15 good cause because the opposition had already been prepared but was not filed due to an 16 inadvertent clerical error. Id. Mackell further argues that there would be no prejudice to 17 Defendants because Defendants could still to file their reply in support of their motion to dismiss. 18 Under Rule 6(b), a “determination of whether neglect is excusable is an equitable one that 19 depends on at least four factors: (1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length of 20 the delay and its potential impact on the proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) whether 21 the movant acted in good faith.” Bateman v. U.S. Postal Serv., 231 F.3d 1220, 1223-24 (9th Cir. 22 2000). The Court finds that there is no danger of prejudice to Defendants because the hearing for 23 Defendants’ motion to dismiss has been vacated and a reply could still be filed. Moreover, 24 Defendants have not opposed this motion to file a late opposition. At this early stage of the case, 25 the late opposition would have no significant impact on the progression of the case. The Court 26 additionally finds the inadvertent clerical error to be an excusable neglect. Based on these 27 reasons, the Court GRANTS Mackell’s motion for leave to file a late opposition to Defendants’ 28 motion to dismiss. 1 Mackell shall file the opposition attached as Exhibit A to its administrative motion, ECF 2 34-1, as a separate docket entry on or before December 13, 2016. Defendants shall file their reply 3 on or before December 20, 2016. The Court will then rule on Defendants’ motion to dismiss on 4 the submitted papers without a hearing. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 9 10 Dated: December 9, 2016 ______________________________________ BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?