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)
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?