Waste and Compliance Management, Inc. v. Stericycle, Inc. et al

Filing 7

ORDER granting 4 Ex Parte Application for Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint. Defendants' Stericycle Specialty Waste Solutions, Inc. and Stericycle, Inc. deadline to respond to the Complaint is hereby extended to 6/27/2017. Signed by Judge Dana M. Sabraw on 6/6/2017. (fth)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Case No. 17-cv-0967 DSM (NLS)

WASTE MANAGEMENT
COMPLIANCE, INC.,

ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE
APPLICATION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO
RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT

Plaintiff,
v.
STERICYCLE, INC.,
STERICYCLE SPECIALTY
WASTE SOLUTIONS, INC., AND
DOES 1-20,
Defendants.

19
20

Pending before the Court is Defendants Stericycle, Inc. and Stericycle

21

Specialty Waste Solutions, Inc.’s Ex Parte Application for Extension of Time to

22

Respond to the Complaint. Plaintiff Waste Management Compliance, Inc. filed an

23

opposition to the Application. For the reasons explained below, the Court grants

24

Defendants’ requested relief.

25

I.

26

BACKGROUND

27

On May 10, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging the following eight

28

causes of action: (1) false advertising under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), (2) false advertising
–1–

17-cv-0967 DMS (NLS)

1

under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq., (3) unfair competition under Cal. Bus.

2

& Prof. Code § 17200 et seq., (4) trade libel, (5) intentional interference with

3

contractual relations, (6) intentional interference with prospective economic

4

advantage, (7) negligent interference with contractual relations, and (8) negligent

5

interference with prospective economic advantage. On May 11, 2017, Plaintiff

6

served Defendants with the Complaint and summons. (Declaration of Jennifer Barry

7

(“Barry Decl.”) ¶ 3.) Subsequently, Defendants retained counsel in the Southern

8

District of California on May 23, 2017. (Id. ¶ 6.) Accordingly, counsel had nine

9

days to respond to the Complaint. On May 24 and 25, 2017, Defendants’ counsel

10

reached out to Plaintiff’s counsel, requesting counsel to stipulate to an extension of

11

time to file their responsive pleading. (Id. ¶¶ 7–8, Ex. 1.) Plaintiff’s counsel refused

12

the request, prompting Defendants to file the present Application on May 26, 2017.

13

(Id. ¶¶ 9–10, Ex. 1.) Plaintiff filed an Opposition on May 30, 2017.

14

II.

15

DISCUSSION

16

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1), “the court may, for good

17

cause, extend the time: (A) with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a

18

request is made, before the original time or its extension expires.” The decision to

19

grant an extension lies within the district court’s discretion. Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife

20

Fed’n, 497 U.S. 871, 896–97 (1990). “This rule, like all the Federal Rules of Civil

21

Procedure, ‘[is] to be liberally construed to effectuate the general purpose of seeing

22

that cases are tried on the merits.’” Ahnachian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d

23

1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 459 (9th Cir.

24

1983). “The good cause standard primarily considers the party’s diligence…. The

25

focus of the inquiry is on the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification; if

26

that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.” Stiller v. Costco Wholesale

27

Corp., No. 3:09-CV-2473-GPC-BGS, 2013 WL 5417178, at *3 (S.D. Cal., Sept. 26,

28

2013) (quoting Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir.
–2–

17-cv-0967 DMS (NLS)

1

1992)).

2

Defendants have a principal place of business in Illinois. After being served,

3

Defendants spent 12 days searching for counsel in the Southern District of

4

California. Prior to the response deadline, Defendants’ counsel requested Plaintiff’s

5

counsel to stipulate to an extension of time for Defendants to respond to the

6

Complaint. When Plaintiff’s counsel refused, Defendants promptly filed the present

7

Application before expiration of the time to respond to the Complaint. Under Rule

8

6(b)(1)(A), good cause exists when a party shows, as here, they acted diligently and

9

in good faith when seeking an extension of time to respond. Defendants point out

10

they were retained nine days before their response was due and they needed

11

additional time to analyze the Complaint, prepare a response, and meet and confer

12

with counsel under the Court’s chamber’s rules. (See App at 2.)

13

Plaintiff contends that granting the Application will result in severe prejudice

14

because “the nature of [its] suit requires immediate action due to [Defendants’]

15

ongoing wrongful acts of disparaging [Plaintiff’s] product[.]” (Opp’n to App. at 2.)

16

Plaintiff, however, fails to present any evidence as to why an extension of time

17

would cause it to suffer harm, let alone harm that cannot be addressed by money

18

damages or injunctive relief in the ordinary course of litigation. Accordingly,

19

Defendants’ Application is granted, as Defendants have acted diligently and shown

20

good cause.

21

III.

22

CONCLUSION

23

For the foregoing reasons, the Ex Parte Application for Extension of Time is

24

granted. Defendants’ deadline to respond to the Complaint is hereby extended to

25

June 27, 2017.

26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

27

///

28

///
–3–

17-cv-0967 DMS (NLS)

1

Dated: June 6, 2017

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
–4–

17-cv-0967 DMS (NLS)