Tedesco v. Grand Brands, Inc. ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARY TEDESCO, on behalf of herself Case No.: 20-CV-1928 TWR (JLB) and all others similarly situated, and the 12 general public, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 13 MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF Plaintiff, TIME TO ANSWER PLAINTIFF’S 14 v. COMPLAINT 15 GRAND BRANDS, INC., a Delaware (ECF No. 10) 16 corporation, dba True Citrus or True Lemon, 17 Defendant. 18 19 On November 23, 2020, the Court struck Defendant Grand Brands, Inc.’s Answer to 20 Plaintiff Mary Tedesco’s Complaint as untimely filed. (See ECF No. 9.) Defendant now 21 moves, jointly with Plaintiff, for a retroactive extension of its deadline to respond to 22 Plaintiff’s Complaint, (see ECF No. 10 (“Joint Mot.”)), explaining that, “[f]ollowing the 23 expiration of Defendant’s original time to respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint, counsel for the 24 Parties conferred, determined an excusable error had occurred, and agreed Defendant 25 would file its Answer as soon as practicable.” (Id. at 1.) Such stipulations do not bind the 26 Court, however, unless the Court approves them. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1); see also 27 In re Sonoma V, 703 F.2d 429, 431 (9th Cir. 1983) (“Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b) the parties 28 may not agree to an extension of time without court approval.”). 1 Nonetheless, the Court concludes that an extension is merited on Defendant’s 2 ||showing of good cause and excusable neglect. (See Joint Mot. at 5—7; ECF No. 10-1 3 (“Spivey Decl.”); ECF No. 10-2 (‘Cuddihy Decl.”).) The Court therefore GRANTS 4 || Defendant’s Joint Motion. Accordingly, Defendant SHALL FILE its Answer within three 5 court days of the electronic docketing of this Order. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: November 30, 2020 | 99> (2 re Honorable Todd W. Robinson 10 United States District Court 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28