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)

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