Federal Trade Commission v. Automators LLC et al

Filing 43

Order Granting Motion to Extend Time to Answer the Complaint (ECF No. 41 ) Defendants' answer due 10/23/2023. Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 9/6/23. (jmo)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

Case No. 23-cv-1444-BAS-LSC
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
EXTEND TIME TO ANSWER THE
COMPLAINT

v.
AUTOMATORS LLC, et al.,

(ECF No. 41)

Defendants,

16
17
18

PEREGRINE WORLDWIDE, LLC,
Relief Defendant.

19
20

Defendants Automators LLC, Stryder Holdings LLC, Pelenea Ventures LLC,

21

Roman Cresto, John Cresto, and Andrew Chapman and Relief Defendant Peregrine

22

Worldwide, LLC (collectively, the “Moving Defendants”) move for an extension of time

23

to answer the FTC’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) until October 23, 2023 (Mot., ECF No. 41).

24

They claim an extension is needed to “give [Moving] Defendants’ counsel sufficient time

25

to investigate the facts, so they can properly evaluate the FTC[’]s claims,” and to “explore

26

an early resolution to this case with the FTC.” (Mot. ¶ 4.) Furthermore, Moving

27

Defendants aver an extension also would enhance efficient case management because it

28

would align the Moving Defendants’ answer date with that of Defendants Empire
-1-

23cv1444

1

Ecommerce LLC and Onyx Distribution LLC. (Id. ¶ 3.) This is Moving Defendants’ first

2

request for an extension.

3

Notwithstanding the FTC’s apparent unwillingness to agree to the full proposed

4

extension, 1 the reasons proffered by Moving Defendants in support of an extension support

5

a finding of “good cause.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(a) (“When an act may or must be

6

done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time . . . with or

7

without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before the original time

8

or its extension expires[.]”); cf. Cook v. Kernan, No. C 15-6343 WHA, 2016 WL 6143037,

9

at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2016) (granting request for an extension of time to permit “counsel

10

to familiarize themselves with the many facts and legal questions at issue”); Grand & Elm

11

Props., LP v. Cellular Sales of Cal., LLC, No. LA CV21-7357 JAK (GJSx), 2022 WL

12

3012826, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2022) (finding good cause where retroactive extension

13

of time served “the interest of judicial and party efficiency”). The Court also finds

14

significant that the FTC’s temporary restraining order (“TRO”) is in place until September

15

19, 2023, and that the FTC has moved to convert the TRO into a Preliminary Injunction

16

(“P.I.”). (See ECF Nos. 5, 8, 34.) The emergency relief that the FTC has obtained and the

17

additional relief it seeks serve as a bulwark against any prejudice that might befall the FTC

18

and Defendants’ consumers from a modest extension of the Moving Defendants’ answer

19

deadline.

20

13535369, at *3 (D. Nev. Jan. 23, 2020) (finding good cause to extend where request was

21

movant’s first and there did not exist any apparent prejudice).

22
23

Cf. Navarette v. Poly W. Inc., No. 2:18-cv-1805-GMN-NJK, 2020 WL

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Moving Defendants’ request and ORDERS
them to respond to the Complaint by no later than October 23, 2023. (ECF No. 41.)

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25

DATED: September 6, 2023

26
27
28

1

Moving Defendants met and conferred with the FTC on August 29, 2023, during which “the FTC
would only agree to extend the response date to September 22. (Mot. at p. 1 n.1.)

-2-

23cv1444