(PC) Rojas v. CDCR

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 12, 2024
• Docket: 2:21-cv-01086
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERTO ROJAS, by and through No. 2:21-cv-01086 DAD AC GUARDIAN AD LITEM SERGIO 12 ROJAS, 13 Plaintiff, ORDER 14 v. 15 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND 16 REHABILITATION, et al., 17 Defendants. 18 19 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding by and through his appointed guardian ad 20 litem in this civil rights action, which was removed from state court on June 18, 2021. All parties 21 are proceeding through counsel. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 22 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 23 Currently pending is defendants’ motion to dismiss which is scheduled for a hearing 24 before the undersigned on January 17, 2024. Plaintiff filed his opposition on December 29, 2023 25 along with a motion for an extension of time to file the untimely opposition due to the excusable 26 neglect of counsel. ECF Nos. 17, 18. Although defendants did not file a formal opposition to the 27 motion for an extension of time, they did indicate in their reply brief that the motion to dismiss 28 //// 1 should be granted on the basis of the untimely filing alone. See ECF No. 19 at 2 n. 2 (citing 2 Local Rule 230(c)). 3 I. Motion for Extension of Time 4 Plaintiff requests an extension of time to file the opposition to the motion to dismiss based 5 on a calendaring error created by counsel’s reliance on a “trusted and well-known treatise on 6 Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial.” ECF No. 17 at 1. The treatise indicated that plaintiff’s 7 opposition was due 14 days before the scheduled hearing, or, in this case, by January 3, 2024. 8 Plaintiff submits that this calendaring error constitutes excusable neglect under Rule 6(b) of the 9 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to justify extending the deadline to oppose the motion to 10 dismiss. 11 II. Legal Standards 12 Rule 6(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a court to grant an extension of 13 time, after a deadline has expired, for good cause and “if the party failed to act because of 14 excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B). The Ninth Circuit has held that the Supreme 15 Court's analysis of excusable neglect in Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates 16 Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380 (1993), applies in this context. See Bateman v. United States 17 Postal Serv., 231 F.3d 1220, 1223–24 (9th Cir. 2000). In Pioneer, the Supreme Court adopted a 18 “flexible understanding” of excusable neglect and identified four basic factors to be considered by 19 the court when ruling on a request to extend a filing deadline. Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 389. These 20 factors include: 1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing party; 2) the length of the delay and its 21 impact on court proceedings; 3) the reason for the delay; and, 4) the good faith of the moving 22 party. Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 395. 23 III. Analysis 24 Applying the factors in Pioneer, the court finds that plaintiff’s delay of 16 days is a very 25 short period of time in light of the history of this case. Moreover, this delay does not have any 26 impact on the scheduled hearing on the motion to dismiss or on the overall proceedings in this 27 case. This matter is at an early stage of proceedings, and the court has not yet issued a scheduling 28 order or set any litigation deadlines. ] Secondly, while a calendaring error has been described as a “weak justification for an 2 || attorney’s delay,” Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1262 (9th Cir. 2010), it is 3 || the type of error that has supported an extension of time. See Pincay v. Andrews, 389 F.3d 853 4 | (9th Cir. 2004). Counsel’s calendaring error was based on his reliance on a secondary legal 5 || resource that he had relied upon in the past to accurately determine response deadlines. In that 6 || light, counsel’s reason for delay was justified. 7 The third factor is whether movant acted in good faith. Based on counsel’s expeditious 8 || attempt to file the opposition after discovering his mistake, the court finds that there is no bad 9 || faith demonstrated in this case. See Bateman, 231 F.3d at 1225 (finding that counsel's “errors 10 || resulted from negligence and carelessness, not from deviousness or willfulness”). 11 The last factor to consider is prejudice to the opposing party. The only prejudice to 12 || defendants is having to appear at the hearing on the motion to dismiss. See Local Rule 230(c) 13 || (stating that “[n]o party will be entitled to be heard in opposition to a motion at oral arguments if 14 || opposition to that motion has not been timely filed). Plaintiff emphasizes that the extension of 15 || time should be granted to allow this case to be resolved on the merits. In analyzing excusable 16 || neglect under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Ninth Circuit has found that 17 || the loss of a quick victory and potentially having to reschedule a trial date were insufficient 18 || prejudice to justify denying an extension of time. Bateman, 231 F.3d at 1225; see also 19 | Ahanchian, 624 F.3d at 1262 (emphasizing that “[a]t most, they would have won a quick but 20 || unmerited victory, the loss of which we do not consider prejudicial.”). Therefore, the court does 21 || not consider prejudice to defendants to be dispositive. 22 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time 23 | to file his opposition to the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 17) is granted. 24 || DATED: January 12, 2024 ~ 25 Hhthtin— Clare ALLISON CLAIRE 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28