Cowan-Oza v. Equifax Information Services, LLC

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Christine Cowan-Oza, Case No. 2:22-cv-00607-GMN-DJA 6 Plaintiff, 7 Order v. 8 Comenity Bank, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 12 On July 19, 2022, Defendant Comenity Bank moved to extend the time for it to respond to 13 Plaintiff’s complaint, which response was originally due June 23, 2022. (ECF No. 22). 14 Comenity explains that it just retained counsel and needs additional time to investigate whether 15 Comenity was properly served. (Id.). After Comenity filed its motion to extend time, Plaintiff 16 withdrew her then-pending motion for clerk’s default against Comenity. (ECF Nos. 21, 24). 17 Under Local Rule IA 6-1(a), a motion to extend time must state the reasons for the 18 extension and inform the court of all previous extensions. A request made after the expiration of 19 the specified period will not be granted unless the movant demonstrates that the failure to file the 20 motion before the deadline expired was the result of excusable neglect. LR IA 6-1(a). The Court 21 has broad authority to manage its docket. See Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.3d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 22 1988). The Ninth Circuit has also repeatedly cautioned that “judgment by default is a drastic step 23 appropriate only in extreme circumstances; a case should, whenever possible, be decided on the 24 merits.” U.S. v. Signed Personal Check No. 730 of Yubran S. Mesle, 615 F.3d 1085, 1091 (9th 25 Cir. 2010) (internal quotations omitted). 26 Here, the Court finds that Comenity has met the requirements to extend the time to 27 respond to the complaint. Comenity has explained that this is the first extension and that it has 1 service, and requests more time to investigate whether service was proper. The Court finds this to 2 fulfill the excusable neglect standard. Granting the extension is also appropriate under the 3 Court’s broad authority to manage its docket and the Ninth Circuit’s caution to decide cases on 4 the merits. Absent the extension, Comenity could not defend the action on its merits. And 5 Plaintiff has withdrawn her motion for clerk’s default. The Court thus grants Comenity’s motion 6 for an extension. 7 8 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Comenity’s motion to extend (ECF No. 22) is 9 granted. Comenity shall have until August 17, 2022 to respond to Plaintiff’s complaint. 10 11 DATED: July 21, 2022 12 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27