(PC) Melendez v. Diaz ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN MELENDEZ, ET AL., Case No. 1:20-cv-01393-ADA-CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO 13 v. FILE OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 14 DIAZ, ET AL, , ORDER AMENDING THE SCHEDULING 15 Defendants. ORDER 16 (ECF No. 41) 17 18 BACKGROUND 19 20 Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on January 31, 2023. (ECF No. 37). 21 On March 7, 2023, the Court deemed the Motion for Summary Judgment suitable for disposition 22 without the need for appearance or oral argument, given Plaintiffs’ failure to timely file an 23 opposition. (ECF No. 40). In addition, given that the Motion for Summary Judgment was 24 unopposed, the Court vacated the motion hearing that was set for March 8, 2023. (Id.) 25 On March 8, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File an Opposition 26 to the Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 41). Plaintiffs represented that they 27 inadvertently mis-calendared the motion hearing date for March 8, 2024, which resulted in a mis- calendared for filing of the opposition. (ECF No. 41 p. 4). Plaintiffs filed their proposed 1 Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment concurrently with the Motion for Extension of 2 Time. (ECF No. 41-3). 3 Defendants filed a response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time on March 10, 4 2023. (ECF No. 41). Defendants represent that they do not oppose Plaintiffs’ request to 5 belatedly file an opposition, so long as the Court addresses the prejudice Defendants incurred due 6 to Plaintiffs’ late filing. 7 In addition, Defendants represent that they have scheduling conflicts that would prevent 8 them from filing a reply brief before the anticipated, reset due date of March 29, 2023. (Id. at 2). 9 Defendants represent that the Court’s ruling on Defendants’ pending motion for summary 10 judgment will determine which Plaintiffs will remain in the case, and thus the number of 11 depositions that Defendants will need to take. Defendants request an extension of the fact 12 deposition deadline from May 4, 2023, to May 25, 2023. Defendants assert that this extension 13 would minimize the prejudice incurred to them by from Plaintiffs’ late opposition. (Id. at 3). 14 STANDARD OF LAW 15 Since Plaintiffs did not seek an extension of time before the expiration of the deadline, 16 they must demonstrate “excusable neglect” to establish good cause for an extension of time to file 17 objections. Fed R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B). To determine whether neglect is excusable, the Court must 18 consider four factors: “(1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length of the 19 delay and its potential impact on the proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the 20 movant acted in good faith.” Bateman v. U.S. Postal Serv., 231 F.3d 1220, 1223-24 (9th Cir. 21 2000); (citing Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395 22 (1993); In re Veritas Software Corp. Sec. Litig., 496 F.3d 962, 973 (9th Cir. 2007). These 23 “equitable factors” are weighted at the discretion of the Court. Pincay v. Andrews, 389 F.3d 853, 24 860 (9th Cir. 2004). 25 ANALYSIS 26 Having weighing the Pioneer factors, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ counsel demonstrated 27 excusable neglect in failing to timely file Plaintiffs’ opposition and finds good cause to deem his 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 2 1. Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Summary Judgment is deemed to be timely filed. 3 2. Defendants shall file any reply not later than March 29, 2023. 4 3. The deadline to complete fact deposition as requested by Defendants is extended to May 5 25, 2023. 6 4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to adjust the docket to reflect that the Pre-trial 7 Conference (December 4, 2023, 1:30 p.m.) and Trial (February 6, 2024, 8:30 a.m.) will be 8 held before the Honorable Ana de Alba, Robert E. Coyle United States Courthouse, 2500 9 Tulare Street, Fresno CA, 93721, Courtroom 1, 8th floor. 10 | IT IS SO ORDERED. pated: _March 15, 2023 | Wr by 12 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28