Message
×
loading..

Brown v. Property and Casualty Insurance Company of Hartford ( 2020 )


Menu:
  • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 CAROLYN BROWN, Case No. 1:20-cv-00186-SAB 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ONE DAY 12 v. EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 13 PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD, (ECF No. 20) 14 Defendant. 15 16 17 I. 18 BACKGROUND 19 On January 9, 2020, Plaintiff Carolyn Brown (“Plaintiff”), appearing pro se, filed this 20 action in the Superior Court of California, County of Madera. (ECF Nos. 1 at 2; 1-1.) On 21 February 5, 2020, Defendant Property and Casualty Insurance Company of Hartford 22 (“Defendant” or “Hartford”), removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern 23 District of California. (ECF No. 1.) On June 1, 2020, the Court issued a scheduling order setting 24 a deadline of July 1, 2020, for any motions or stipulations requesting leave to amend the 25 pleadings in this action. (ECF No. 19 at 2.) 26 On July 2, 2020, Defendant filed an ex parte application pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 27 Procedure 60(b)(1), requesting an extension of the July 1, 2020 deadline for filing motions for leave to amend. (Def.’s Ex Parte Appl. (“Appl.”), ECF No. 20; Decl. Andrew B. Downs Supp. 1 Ex Parte Appl. (“Downs Decl.”), ECF No. 20-1.) Defendant requests the Court set a deadline of 2 one court day following the Court’s decision on the ex parte application for Defendant to file a 3 motion for leave to file a cross-complaint. (Appl. 1.) 4 Defendant wishes to file a motion for leave to file a cross-complaint against Plaintiff 5 Carolyn Brown, and her daughter Mecca Morgan, who Defendant believes is the real party in 6 interest for most, if not all, of Plaintiff’s claims. (Id. at 3.) Defendant states “[a]s much as 7 anything else, the purpose of the cross-complaint is to clean up the pleadings.” (Id.) 8 Defendant argues filing the ex parte application was necessary due to the error of 9 Defendant’s counsel. (Id.) Counsel argues he was mindful of the July 1, 2020 deadline, 10 prepared the cross-complaint a week prior to the deadline, contacted Plaintiff requesting a 11 stipulation for its filing, and prepared a motion for leave to file the cross-complaint. (Id.; Downs 12 Decl. ¶ 2.) Plaintiff emailed counsel on June 26, 2020, and stated that she would contact counsel 13 via telephone on Monday, June 29, 2020, however, Plaintiff did not do so, and “with the press of 14 other business, [counsel for Defendant] forgot about the motion until” the morning of July 2, 15 2020. (Appl. at 3; Downs Decl. ¶ 3.) Counsel states that he ordinarily manages deadlines using 16 Outlook task reminders, there was one such reminder set for this motion, but it appears he 17 inadvertently dismissed the reminder several days prior this filing. (Downs Decl. ¶ 4.) 18 Counsel acknowledges he forgot about the July 1 deadline until 7:30 a.m. on July 2, 19 emphasizes this was “entirely [his] error,” and that Defendant Hartford did not contribute to the 20 error. (Downs Decl. ¶ 4.) Counsel thus argues relief is proper under Federal Rule of Civil 21 Procedure 60(b)(1), and that neither Defendant, “nor the orderly progress of this matter should be 22 harmed by the undersigned’s error, particularly when the deadline was missed by only one day.” 23 (Appl. at 3-4.) 24 II. 25 DISCUSSION 26 Rule 60 provides that: “On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its 27 legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding . . . [due to] mistake, 1 6(b)(1)(B) (“When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good 2 cause, extend the time . . . on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to act 3 because of excusable neglect.”); Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258–59 4 (9th Cir. 2010) (noting Rule 6, “like all the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, [is] to be liberally 5 construed to effectuate the general purpose of seeing that cases are tried on the merits.”) 6 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted) (alteration in original). “To determine whether a 7 party’s failure to meet a deadline constitutes ‘excusable neglect,’ courts must apply a four-factor 8 equitable test, examining: (1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length of the 9 delay and its potential impact on the proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) whether 10 the movant acted in good faith.” Ahanchian, 624 F.3d at 1261. Rule 60(b) is “remedial in 11 nature” and “must be liberally applied.” Id, at 1262. 12 Considering the four factors for excusable neglect, the Court finds Defendant has 13 established excusable neglect, and finds: (1) the danger of prejudice to Plaintiff is slight, if any1; 14 (2) the length of the delay is only one day, and should have minimal, if any, impact on the 15 proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay is justifiable given counsel’s proffered reasons 16 summarized above; and (4) there is no indication Defendant acted in bad faith considering the 17 attempts to stipulate to the extension, and immediate filing of the ex parte application the 18 morning following the expiration of the deadline. See Ahanchian, 624 F.3d at 1262 (noting that 19 “while a calendaring mistake caused by the failure to apply a clear local rule may be a weak 20 justification for an attorney’s delay, we have previously found the identical mistake to be 21 excusable neglect.”) 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 1 Plaintiff has been provided notice of the ex parte application. (Downs Decl. ¶ 5.) Rather than further delaying 27 proceedings waiting for a response to the instant application from Plaintiff, the Court shall grant the requested one day extension. To the extent Plaintiff may be prejudiced by the extension, she may raise any such objection in wOoOe UVM EO SAD MVOC oh POO Ie AY ST 1 Ii. 2 ORDER 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. Defendant’s ex parte application is GRANTED; and 5 2. Defendant shall file a motion for leave to amend within one (1) court day after 6 entry of this order. 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. OF. a Se 9 | Dated: _July 2, 2020 _ ef 0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Document Info

Docket Number: 1:20-cv-00186

Filed Date: 7/6/2020

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 6/19/2024