CPALead, LLC v. Adeptive Ads LLC et al

Filing 188

ORDER Granting Defendant's 171 Motion to Extend Time to File. Plaintiff's 174 Motion to Strike Defendant's Answer to the Second Amended Complaint is Denied as moot. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 9/8/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 CPALEAD, LLC, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) ADEPTIVE ADS, LLC, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) _______________________________________ ) Case No. 2:14-cv-01449-JCM-CWH ORDER Presently before the court is Defendant Michael Simmons’ motion (ECF No. 171) to extend time to file, filed on March 18, 2016. Plaintiff has filed a response (ECF No. 173). Also before the court is Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 174) to strike Defendant’s answer to the 13 second amended complaint, filed on April 4, 2016. Defendant has filed a response (ECF No. 178), 14 and Plaintiff has filed a reply (ECF No. 179). 15 In his motion for an extension, Defendant, acting pro se, represents that he was unaware that 16 he was required to file an answer to Plaintiff’s second amended complaint. He notes that he has been 17 responsive to other matters in this case, and represents that he intends to hire an attorney to represent 18 him. Defendant therefore requests an extension of two weeks to file an answer. After filing his 19 motion, Defendant also filed an answer (ECF No. 172) to Plaintiff’s second amended complaint 20 (ECF No. 150). 21 Plaintiff objects to Defendant’s motion, and moves to strike Defendant’s answer as 22 unauthorized in light of the clerk’s default (ECF No. 170) filed in this case on March, 11, 2016. 23 However, on September 6, 2016, the court denied (ECF No. 187) the motion for clerk’s default 24 against Defendant. The court may grant leave to file an answer after the usual deadline has passed 25 upon a showing of “excusable neglect.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B). Here, the Defendant has 26 shown that he was participating in the case, but did not understand the requirement to respond to 27 Plaintiff’s amended complaint. Moreover, absent a default against Defendant, an extension will not 28 prejudice Plaintiff. The court will therefore grant Defendant an extension to file an answer to 1 2 3 4 5 Plaintiff’s second amended complaint. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s motion (ECF No. 171) to extend time to file is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 174) to strike Defendant’s answer to the second amended complaint is DENIED as moot. 6 7 8 DATED: September 8, 2016. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _________________________________ C.W. Hoffman, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge

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?