Aragon v. Experian Data Corporation

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: June 2, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-00814
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL ARAGON, Case No. 25-cv-0814-BAS-SBC

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 13 v. EX PARTE MOTION TO EXTEND

14 EXPERIAN DATA CORPORATION, (ECF No. 6) 15 Defendant. 16 17 Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (“Experian” or “Defendant”) has 18 moved ex parte for an extension of its time to respond to the Complaint. (ECF No. 6.) The 19 Court denies this motion as improperly filed for the following reasons. 20 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), federal courts must screen all in forma pauperis 21 complaints and any amended complaints before allowing the case to move forward, issuing 22 summonses, and requiring a responsive pleading. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th 23 Cir. 2000) (en banc) (§ 1915(e) applies to “all in forma pauperis complaints”). If a 24 complaint states a valid claim for relief, the court will direct the Clerk of Court to issue 25 summons to the defendant(s) and the plaintiff must then serve the summons and complaint 26 within 90 days. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 27 Plaintiff filed their complaint with an accompanying Motion for Leave to Proceed 28 in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) The summons has not yet been issued in this case as 1 ||the complaint has not yet been screened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Therefore, 2 Experian has not yet been properly served and the clock has not begun on its deadline to 3 ||respond to the Complaint. With this in mind, the Motion to Extend is DENIED without 4 || prejudice. (ECF No. 6.) 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 DATED: June 2, 2025 ii ly A (Dipharb 8 Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge 9 United States District Court

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 a.