U.S.A. Dawgs, Inc. et al v. Crocs, Inc.

Filing 37

ORDER Granting 36 Motion for Leave to Extend Time to File a Response re 29 Motion for Sanctions. FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs shall have one day from the date of this order to file their response to defendant's motion. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 1/20/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7 *** 8 9 U.S.A. DAWGS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, 10 11 12 Case No. 2:16-cv-01694-JCM- PAL ORDER v. CROCS, INC., Defendant. 13 14 Presently before the court is U.S.A. Dawgs, Inc. and Double Diamond Distribution, Ltd.’s 15 (“plaintiffs”) motion for leave to extend time to file a response to defendant Crocs, Inc.’s motion 16 for sanctions. (ECF No. 36). Plaintiffs request one additional day to file their response. (Id.). 17 Defendant filed its motion for sanctions on December 20, 2016. (ECF No. 29). The 18 original deadline to respond to that motion was January 3, 2017, but this court granted a motion 19 on January 4, 2017, to extend the deadline to respond to January 17, 2017. (ECF No. 32). 20 In the instant motion, counsel for plaintiffs explains that he “had fully complied with the 21 administrative procedures for securing ECF log-in credentials, including responding on January 22 16 to the ECF administrator’s link confirming counsel’s email address” and that counsel believed 23 he could access the ECF system within one business day. (Id. at 2). However, counsel realized 24 that he could not access the system on January 17, 2017, and the local counsel of record was not 25 available to file the response. (Id. at 2). Therefore, plaintiffs did not file the response within the 26 relevant deadline. 27 Excusable neglect is an “elastic concept” that is determined by considering, inter alia: “the 28 danger of prejudice to the [party not under scrutiny], the length of the delay and its potential impact 1 on judicial proceedings, the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable 2 control of the movant, and whether the movant acted in good faith.” Briones v. Riviera Hotel & 3 Casino, 116 F.3d 379, 381 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. 4 Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 391–93, 95 (1993) (discussing “excusable neglect” in the context of 5 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)). 6 This court finds that granting this motion would result in little prejudice to the defendant, 7 the delay would be minimal, the movants acted in good faith, and plaintiffs otherwise have shown 8 that excusable neglect is present here. 9 10 11 12 13 14 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that plaintiffs’ motion for leave to extend time (ECF No. 36) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs shall have one day from the date of this order to file their response to defendant’s motion. DATED THIS 20th day of January, 2017. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JAMES C. MAHAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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?