Federal National Mortgage Association v. Canyon Willow Owners Association, et al.

Filing 27

ORDER re 13 Motion to Dismiss Responses due within 14 days of this Order., Replies due 7 days from the date plaintiff files its response. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 1/17/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7

***

8
9

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION,

ORDER

10
11
12
13
14

Case No. 2:16-cv-00203-JCM-CWH

Plaintiff,
v.
CANYON WILLOW OWNERS
ASSOCIATION, et al.,
Defendants.

15

Presently before the court is plaintiff Federal National Mortgage Association’s response to

16

this court’s December 28, 2016, order to show cause why defendant Canyon Willow Owners

17

Association’s motion to dismiss the complaint should not be granted. (ECF No. 25).

18

Excusable neglect is an “elastic concept” that is determined by considering, inter alia: “the

19

danger of prejudice to the [party not under scrutiny], the length of the delay and its potential impact

20

on judicial proceedings, the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable

21

control of the movant, and whether the movant acted in good faith.” Briones v. Riviera Hotel &

22

Casino, 116 F.3d 379, 381 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs.

23

Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 391–93, 95 (1993) (discussing “excusable neglect” in the context of

24

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)).

25

Although plaintiff’s counsel admits the omission in failing to timely respond to the motion

26

to dismiss, this court, upon review of plaintiff’s response to the previous order and defendant’s

27

lack of relevant filings, finds that: (1) defendant suffered little prejudice; (2) the plaintiff did not

28

act in bad faith; (3) the delay, in light of discussions between the parties and the case’s progression,

1

is not substantial; and (4) plaintiff has signaled an intent to simply refile its complaint if the present

2

one is dismissed without prejudice. (ECF No. 25); see also Briones, 116 F.3d at 381.

3

Therefore, plaintiff has exhibited excusable neglect in its failure to file a response to the

4

motion to dismiss. Thus, plaintiff will be allowed to file a response to defendant’s motion to

5

dismiss (ECF No. 13).

6

Accordingly,

7

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that plaintiff shall file a

8

response to defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 13) within fourteen (14) days of the date of

9

this order.

10
11
12

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant will have seven (7) days from the date plaintiff
files its response to submit its reply.
DATED THIS 17th day of January, 2017.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

JAMES C. MAHAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE