Saucedo v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VALERIANO SAUCEDO, Case No. 1:22-cv-01584-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE MOTION FOR 13 v. AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME 14 EXPERIAN INFORMATION FEBRUARY 6, 2023 DEADLINE SOLUTIONS, INC., 15 (Doc. No. 5) Defendant. 16 17 Defendant Experian Information Solutions filed an ex parte application to extend time to 18 respond to Complaint on January 4, 2023. (Doc. No. 5). Plaintiff filed a response in opposition 19 that same day. (Doc. No. 6). 20 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) provides for extending deadlines for good cause 21 shown, if the request to extend time is made before the original time, or its extension expires; or, 22 on a motion made after the time has expired, if the party failed to act because of excusable 23 neglect. Plaintiff timely filed the instant motion and has shown good cause for the extension of 24 time. Notably, a review of the docket reveals Plaintiff filed the Complaint on December 8, 2022, 25 and Defendants received service of process on December 19, 2022. (Doc. No. 4). There were 26 two recognized, intervening federal holidays following the date of service of process. This case 27 is a class action, which by their nature are deemed complex civil actions. 28 Despite Plaintiff not stipulating to the proposed 30-day extension, the Court encourages 1 | “civility and mutual respect among members of the bar that ought to encourage attorney consent 2 | to one another’s reasonable, nonprejudicial, good faith extension requests.” Federal Civil Rules 3 || Handbook, Rule 6(b) at 327-328 (2023) (citing Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 4 | 1263 (9th Cir. 2010). Defendant fails to explain how a 30-day extension of time is unreasonable, 5 || prejudicial or not made in good faith. Further, this Court’s Local Rules recognize that the parties 6 | may stipulate to a 28-day extension of time without court approval. Local Rule 144(a)(E.D. Cal. 7 | 2022). Thus, the Court finds good cause to grant Defendant the twenty-eight day extension of 8 | time already deemed reasonable by this Court. 9 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 10 1. Defendant’s motion for an extension of time (Doc. No. 5) is GRANTED in part. 11 2. Defendant shall file a response to the Complaint no later than February 6, 2023, 12 | absent further motion and good cause shown. 13 Dated: _ January 9, 2023 law ZA. foareh Zackte 15 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28