Harper v. Southwest Airline Co.

Opinion

Jason Kuller, NV Bar No. 12244 Robert Montes, CA Bar No. 159137 (Pro Hac Vice) 3] Rachel Mariner, NV Bar No. 16728 4|| RAFIT & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 1120 N. Town Center Dr., Ste. 130 Las Vegas, Nevada 89144 6|| Phone: 725.245.6056 Fax: 725.220.1802 7 jason@rafiilaw.com g || robert@rafiilaw.com rachel@rafiilaw.com ? Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1D 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Oo JALA HARPER, on behalf of Case No. 2:24-CV-01799-APG-DJA herself and all others similarly situated, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXTEND Plaintiff, TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS M7 SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.,a | AND MOTION TO STRIKE (ECF No. 27) 1g|| foreign corporation; and DOES 1 | pURSUANT TO FRCP 6(b)(1)(A) & □□ □□ through 50, inclusive, 6-1(a) 19 Defendants. 20 (First Request) 21 22 23 24 Plaintiff Jala Harper, by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby moves 25|| the Court for a one-day extension of time pursuant to FRCP 6(b)(1)(A) and LR IA 6- 26|| 1(a) to permit the late filing of Plaintiff's response to Defendant’s motion to dismiss 27||and motion to strike (ECF No. 27) (“Dismiss Motion’) filed on February 18, 2025 Plaintiff's response to the Dismiss Motion (“Dismiss Response’’) is due to be filed by

midnight tonight on March 11, 2024, per the parties’ joint stipulation on February 27 2||2025 (ECF No. 30), granted by the Court on March 3, 2025 (ECF No. 31). By this Motion, Plaintiff seeks a brief one-day extension to file her Dismiss Response based 4||on the following points and authorities, all pleadings on file in this matter, and any 5|| further argument or evidence entertained by the Court. 6 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 7 I. LEGAL STANDARD 8 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(A) provides that "[W]hen an act may o1 9|| must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time = ...with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before the original time or its extension expires.” This rule is to be “liberally construed tc 12|| effectuate the general purpose of seeing that cases are tried on the merits.” Ahanchiar 13|| v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2012) (ruling that district cour 14|}abused its discretion in denying extension request). Consequently, requests fo! : extensions of time “should normally be granted in the absence of bad faith on the par 16|| of the party secking relief or prejudice to the adverse party.” /d. (quoting 4B Charles 17|| Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1165 (3d ed. 2004) 18|| Gnternal quotations omitted)). As shown below, good cause exists for the requestec 19|| extension of time to ensure that Defendant’s Dismiss Motion is decided on the merits. 20 I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 21 In response to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 24) (““FAC” o1 Complaint”), Defendant filed both a Motion for Sanctions (ECF NO. 26) (“Sanctions 23|| Motion”) and the Dismiss Motion (ECF No. 27) (collectively “Motions”). On 24||February 27, 2025, the parties stipulated to extend the briefing schedule or 25|| Defendant’s Motions by one week. ECF No. 30 (“Stipulation”). The Court granted 26|| the parties’ Stipulation on March 3, 2025. ECF No. 31. 27 For reasons set forth in Plaintiff's motion to extend time to file response tc 28 || Defendant’s Sanctions Motion (ECF No. 33), Plaintiff was unable to file her response

1||to the Sanctions Motion (“Sanctions Response”) until yesterday, March 10, 2025. 2||See ECF No. 32. Because Defendant would not stipulate or consent to the late filing 3||of Plaintiff's Sanctions Response, Plaintiff was required to move the Court for an 4|| extension (“Extension Motion”) pursuant to FRCP 6(b)(1)(B) and LR IA 6-(a) basec 5||on a showing of excusable neglect. Researching and drafting the Extension Motion. 6||as well as the supporting declaration and evidence, took several hours and limited the 7|| work time available to finalize and file Plaintiff's Dismiss Response. See ECF No. 8|/33. Rather than risk missing the deadline on the Dismiss Response without Cour 9 || permission, undersigned Plaintiffs counsel is filing this Motion and requesting a □□□□□ = one-day extension. Il. ARGUMENT 12 Requesting an extension of time prior to the expired deadline requires □ 13||showing of “good cause.” FRCP 6(b)(1)(A). “‘Good cause’ is a non-rigorous 14|| standard that has been construed broadly across procedural and statutory contexts.’ : 15|| Ahanchian, 624 F.3d at 1259. Here, good cause exists based on unexpected hours 16|| devoted to Plaintiff’s Extension Motion and the resulting time crunch caused on the 17|| finalization of Plaintiff's Dismiss Response. A one-day extension poses hardly any 18||risk of prejudice to Defendant and will hardly impact the judicial proceedings since 19|| the case is young and discovery is stayed pending the Court’s ruling on Defendant’s 20|| Dismiss Motion. Finally, the policy of hearing matters on their merits favor the 21|| requested extension. See Ahanchian, 624 F.3d at 1259. 22\|/// 23])/// 24|\/// 25||/// 26||/// 27/11 28]|///

1 IV. CONCLUSION 2 It is within a trial court's sound discretion to determine whether to grant ¢ 3||extension of time. See Ahanchian, 624 F.3d at 1258. Based on the foregoing, goc 4||cause exists to grant the brief one-day extension requested. Accordingly, Plainti 5|| respectfully requests that the Court grant the instant Motion. 7 Respectfully submitted, 8|| DATED: March 11, 2025 RAFI & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 9 AA %—_ SON KULLER Of Counsel Attorneys for Plaintiff Jala Harper

3 is 7 IS SO ORDERED:

Dated:_March 12, 2025 g-—_ ANDREW P. GORDON 18 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Aa