Paunovic v. OBI Seafoods LLC

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 MARIJA PAUNOVIC and DUSAN CASE NO. C21-884 MJP PAUNOVIC, individually and on 11 behalf of all others similarly situated, ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO ACCEPT LATE- 12 Plaintiffs, FILED OPPOSITION 13 v. 14 OBI SEAFOODS LLC and OCEAN BEAUTY SEAFOODS LLC, 15 Defendants. 16

17 This matter comes before on Defendants’ Motion to Accept Late-Filed Opposition. (Dkt. 18 No. 121.) Having reviewed the Motion, Plaintiffs’ Opposition (Dkt. No. 122), and all supporting 19 materials, the Court GRANTS the Motion. 20 Defendants ask the Court to accept their oppositions to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend the 21 Scheduling Order (Dkt. No. 103) and Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order and for Leave to 22 Amend the Complaint (Dkt. No. 105). Defendants argue that their oppositions were timely filed 23 24 1 and, if not, their failure to do so was due to a good faith misreading of the Local Rules. The 2 Court reviews both arguments. 3 Defendants first argue that their oppositions were timely filed on the Wednesday before 4 the noting date for each Motion because both Motions were subject to the briefing rules set forth

5 in Local Rule 7(d)(2). Local Rule 7(d)(2) applies to motions that seek relief from a deadline, and 6 it requires that the motion be noted no earlier than the second Friday from filing and that all 7 oppositions be filed the Wednesday before the noting date. Plaintiffs maintain that their Motions 8 were properly noted under Local Rule 7(d)(3)—three Fridays from the filing date—and that 9 Defendants’ responses were due the Monday before the noting date. Plaintiffs maintain that even 10 if their Motion to Amend the Sheduling Order and Amend the Complaint (Dkt. No. 105) sought 11 relief from a deadline, it would be subject to the longer noting date under Rule 7(d)(3) because it 12 seeks leave to amend the complaint. 13 The Court finds that only one of the oppositions was timely filed. The Court agrees with 14 Defendants that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order (Dkt. No. 103) is a motion

15 for relief from a deadline governed by Local Rule 7(d)(2). As such, the opposition was timely 16 filed the Wednesday before the noting date even though Plaintiffs noted it for three Fridays from 17 the filing date. Plaintiffs’ other Motion (Dkt. No. 105) also asks for relief from a deadline and for 18 permission to amend the complaint. This Motion arguably falls under both Local Rule 7(d)(2) 19 and 7(d)(3). But the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that Motion is governed by Local Rule 7(d)(3) 20 because motions seeking multiple forms of relief are governed by the Local Rule providing the 21 longest applicable noting date. This means that Defendants’ opposition was due the Monday 22 before the noting date and it was filed two days late. 23

24 1 Defendants also ask the Court to excuse any tardy opposition on the theory that counsel 2 mistakenly calendared the oppositions under Local Rule 7(d)(2) and not Local Rule 7(d)(3). 3 Having considered the potential ambiguity in the Local Rules on the precise briefing deadlines 4 applicable to a motion seeking mixed relief, the Court finds that Defendants’ late response is

5 excusable and that the failure to timely file the opposition was not due to bad faith. See Pioneer 6 Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assoc. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993). The Court also finds 7 that any prejudice to Plaintiffs is miminal and can be redressed by providing additional time to 8 file a substantive response. See id. 9 The Court therefore GRANTS the Motion and accepts both of Defendants’ Oppositions. 10 The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs LEAVE to file new Replies to both Motions (Dkt. Nos. 103 & 11 105) by no later than August 29, 2022. 12 The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel. 13 Dated August 24, 2022. A 14 15 Marsha J. Pechman United States Senior District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24