Martinez v. AJM Packaging Corporation

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: March 25, 2024
• Docket: 3:24-cv-00268
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SAMANTHA MARTINEZ, an individual, Case No. 24-cv-0268-BAS-BGS

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PARTIES’ 13 v. JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE ANSWER (ECF No. 9) 14 AJM PACKAGING CORPORATION, a

business entity, form unknown; 15 ARMANDO MEDINA, an individual; and 16 DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, 17 Defendants. 18 19 Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to Extend Defendant Armando 20 Medina’s Deadline to Respond to Complaint (“Joint Motion”). (ECF No. 9.) The parties 21 seek the extension due to Defendant Medina’s difficulties in obtaining appropriate counsel 22 in time to respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint. (Id. ¶ 7.) 23 Upon considering the parties’ Joint Motion and the relevant four-factor test, the 24 Court finds Medina failed to timely act due to excusable neglect. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b); 25 Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1261 (9th Cir. 2010) (enumerating a 26 four-factor equitable test for determining excusable neglect); see also Pioneer Inv. Servs. 27 Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd., 507 U.S. 380, 392 (1993) (“[I]t is clear that ‘excusable 28 neglect’ under Rule 6(b) is a somewhat ‘elastic concept’ and is not limited strictly to 1 || omissions caused by circumstances beyond the control of the movant.”). Thus, the Court 2 ||retroactively extends the time period for Medina to file his response to the Complaint to 3 March 18, 2024. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 A , 6 || DATED: March 25, 2024 Ypilag (Lyohaa 6 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4.