Casteel v. Aranas

Filing 85

ORDER - Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to file a motion to amend (ECF No. 79 ) is GRANTED. An opposition to plaintiffs motion to amend is due on July 20, 2021. A reply is due on July 27, 2021. Thereafter, the court will rule on the motion to amend. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carla Baldwin on 7/13/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SMR)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

SCOTT CASTEEL,

4
5
6

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 3:20-CV-00381-GMN-CLB
ORDER

ROMEO ARANAS, et al.,

7

Defendants.

8
9

Currently before the court are Plaintiff’s motion to extend the deadline to file an

10

amended complaint. (ECF No. 79). Defendants responded that they do not necessarily

11

oppose an extension of time but did not know whether they have an objection to any

12

proposed amended complaint until Plaintiff filed a motion to amend. (ECF No. 80). No

13

reply was filed.

14

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) governs the modification of scheduling

15

orders and discovery plans. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) provides that “[a] schedule may be

16

modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent.” The good cause inquiry

17

focuses primarily on the movant's diligence. DRK Photo v. McGraw-Hill Global Educ.

18

Holdings, LLC, 870 F.3d 978, 989 (9th Cir. 2017).

19

Local Rule 26-3 supplements Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 and provides that discovery plans

20

and scheduling orders may be modified for good cause, provided that a motion to extend

21

is made “no later than 21 days before the expiration of the subject deadline.” See LR 26-

22

3; see also Local Rule IA 6-1.2. The good cause standard primarily considers the

23

diligence of the party or parties seeking the extension. In re W. States Wholesale Nat.

24

Gas Antitrust Litig., 715 F.3d 716, 737 (9th Cir. 2013). The Court has broad discretion in

25

supervising the pretrial phase of litigation. See C.F. ex rel. Farnan v. Capistrano Unified

26

Sch. Dist., 654 F.3d 975, 984 (9th Cir. 2011).

27

Local Rule 26-4 states if a request to extend a deadline occurs “after the expiration

28

of the subject deadline,” the request will not be granted “unless the movant also

1

demonstrates that the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect.” LR 26-4.

2

In this instance, Defendants expressly indicate that they do not oppose Plaintiff’s

3

requested extension. (ECF No. 80). Although the court questions whether Plaintiff’s

4

reasons for failure to request an extension prior to the expiration of the deadline was

5

established on excusable neglect, as a pro se litigant, the court will give him the benefit

6

of the doubt. Moreover, pursuant to Local Rule 7-2(d), the failure of an opposing party to

7

file points and authorities in response to any motion . . . shall constitute a consent to the

8

granting of the motion. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to file a motion

9

to amend (ECF No. 79) is GRANTED.

10
11

An opposition to plaintiff’s motion to amend is due on July 20, 2021. A reply is due
on July 27, 2021. Thereafter, the court will rule on the motion to amend.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

July 13, 2021
DATED: _____________________

14
15

____________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

-2-