Casteel v. Aranas
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Case No. 3:20-CV-00381-GMN-CLB
ROMEO ARANAS, et al.,
Currently before the court are Plaintiff’s motion to extend the deadline to file an
amended complaint. (ECF No. 79). Defendants responded that they do not necessarily
oppose an extension of time but did not know whether they have an objection to any
proposed amended complaint until Plaintiff filed a motion to amend. (ECF No. 80). No
reply was filed.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) governs the modification of scheduling
orders and discovery plans. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) provides that “[a] schedule may be
modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent.” The good cause inquiry
focuses primarily on the movant's diligence. DRK Photo v. McGraw-Hill Global Educ.
Holdings, LLC, 870 F.3d 978, 989 (9th Cir. 2017).
Local Rule 26-3 supplements Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 and provides that discovery plans
and scheduling orders may be modified for good cause, provided that a motion to extend
is made “no later than 21 days before the expiration of the subject deadline.” See LR 26-
3; see also Local Rule IA 6-1.2. The good cause standard primarily considers the
diligence of the party or parties seeking the extension. In re W. States Wholesale Nat.
Gas Antitrust Litig., 715 F.3d 716, 737 (9th Cir. 2013). The Court has broad discretion in
supervising the pretrial phase of litigation. See C.F. ex rel. Farnan v. Capistrano Unified
Sch. Dist., 654 F.3d 975, 984 (9th Cir. 2011).
Local Rule 26-4 states if a request to extend a deadline occurs “after the expiration
of the subject deadline,” the request will not be granted “unless the movant also
demonstrates that the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect.” LR 26-4.
In this instance, Defendants expressly indicate that they do not oppose Plaintiff’s
requested extension. (ECF No. 80). Although the court questions whether Plaintiff’s
reasons for failure to request an extension prior to the expiration of the deadline was
established on excusable neglect, as a pro se litigant, the court will give him the benefit
of the doubt. Moreover, pursuant to Local Rule 7-2(d), the failure of an opposing party to
file points and authorities in response to any motion . . . shall constitute a consent to the
granting of the motion. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to file a motion
to amend (ECF No. 79) is GRANTED.
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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
July 13, 2021
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 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?