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)

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