Villalpando v. Zale Corporation ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 8 JANE VILLALPANDO, on behalf of Case No. 1:22-cv-00432-AWI-SKO herself and all others similarly situated, 9 ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff, STIPULATION TO EXTEND 10 TIME TO RESPOND TO INITIAL v. COMPLAINT 11 ZALE CORPORATION, a Delaware (Doc. 16) 12 corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, 13 Defendants. 14 15 On November 3, 2022, the parties submitted a Stipulation to Extend Time 16 (Doc. 16) requesting a fourth extension of time for Defendants to file their response 17 to Plaintiff’s complaint. Pursuant to the Court’s order granting the parties’ third 18 Stipulation to Extend Time to Respond to Complaint, Defendants’ response to the 19 Complaint was due on October 14, 2022 (see Doc. 14), twenty (20) days before the 20 parties filed the present Stipulation. 21 The Court may extend time to act after the deadline has expired because of 22 “excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B). Here, although the present 23 Stipulation demonstrates good cause to support the request for extension of time (see 24 Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4)), no such excusable neglect has been articulated—much less 25 shown—to justify the untimeliness of the request. Notwithstanding this deficiency, 26 given the absence of bad faith or prejudice to Plaintiff (as evidenced by her agreement 27 to the extension of time after the deadline), and in view of the liberal construction of 28 1 on the merits, see Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258–59 (9th 2 Cir. 2010), the Court GRANTS the parties’ stipulated request. The parties are 3 cautioned that future post hoc requests for extensions of time will be viewed with 4 disfavor. 5 Accordingly, Defendants’ responsive pleading deadline shall be 6 EXTENDED, nunc pro tunc, from October 14, 2022, to February 27, 2023. 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: November 4, 2022 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28