Federal Trade Commission v. Automators LLC

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Case No. 23-cv-1444-BAS-LSC

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 v. EXTEND TIME TO ANSWER THE COMPLAINT 14 AUTOMATORS LLC, et al.,

15 Defendants, (ECF No. 41)

18 Relief Defendant.

20 Defendants Automators LLC, Stryder Holdings LLC, Pelenea Ventures LLC, 21 Roman Cresto, John Cresto, and Andrew Chapman and Relief Defendant Peregrine 22 Worldwide, LLC (collectively, the “Moving Defendants”) move for an extension of time 23 to answer the FTC’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) until October 23, 2023 (Mot., ECF No. 41). 24 They claim an extension is needed to “give [Moving] Defendants’ counsel sufficient time 25 to investigate the facts, so they can properly evaluate the FTC[’]s claims,” and to “explore 26 an early resolution to this case with the FTC.” (Mot. ¶ 4.) Furthermore, Moving 27 Defendants aver an extension also would enhance efficient case management because it 28 would align the Moving Defendants’ answer date with that of Defendants Empire 1 ||Ecommerce LLC and Onyx Distribution LLC. (/d. § 3.) This is Moving Defendants’ first 2 ||request for an extension. 3 Notwithstanding the FTC’s apparent unwillingness to agree to the full proposed 4 || extension,' the reasons proffered by Moving Defendants in support of an extension support 5 finding of “good cause.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(a) (‘When an act may or must be 6 ||done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time. . . with or 7 || without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request 1s made, before the original time 8 || or its extension expires[.]’’); cf’ Cook v. Kernan, No. C 15-6343 WHA, 2016 WL 6143037, 9 || at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2016) (granting request for an extension of time to permit “counsel 10 || to familiarize themselves with the many facts and legal questions at issue”); Grand & Elm 11 || Props., LP v. Cellular Sales of Cal., LLC, No. LA CV21-7357 JAK (GJSx), 2022 WL 12 3012826, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2022) (finding good cause where retroactive extension 13 time served “the interest of judicial and party efficiency”). The Court also finds 14 || significant that the FTC’s temporary restraining order (“TRO”) is in place until September 15 || 19, 2023, and that the FTC has moved to convert the TRO into a Preliminary Injunction 16 ||(“P.I.”). (See ECF Nos. 5, 8, 34.) The emergency relief that the FTC has obtained and the 17 || additional relief it seeks serve as a bulwark against any prejudice that might befall the FTC 18 Defendants’ consumers from a modest extension of the Moving Defendants’ answer 19 ||deadline. Cf Navarette v. Poly W. Inc., No. 2:18-cv-1805-GMN-NJK, 2020 WL 20 |} 13535369, at *3 (D. Nev. Jan. 23, 2020) (finding good cause to extend where request was 21 ||movant’s first and there did not exist any apparent prejudice). 22 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Moving Defendants’ request and ORDERS 23 them to respond to the Complaint by no later than October 23, 2023. (ECF No. 41.) 25 || DATED: September 6, 2023 ( yi uA A (Liphan 6 26 United States District Judge 27 || ——_—— | Moving Defendants met and conferred with the FTC on August 29, 2023, during which “the FTC would only agree to extend the response date to September 22. (Mot. at p. 1 n.1.)