Protingent Inc v. Gustafson-Feis

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 PROTINGENT, INC., a Washington corporation, CASE NO. C20-1551-KKE 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 9 MOTION TO STRIKE AND RE- v. NOTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY 10 JUDGMENT LISA GUSTAFSON-FEIS et al, 11 Defendant. 12 13 LISA GUSTAFSON-FEIS, an individual, 14 Counterclaim Plaintiff, 15 v. 16 PROTINGENT, INC., a Washington corporation; 17 AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut corporation; RAWLINGS & 18 ASSOCIATES PLLC, a Kentucky professional limited liability company 19 Counterclaim Defendants. 20

21 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant Protingent, Inc.’s 22 (“Protingent”) motion to strike (Dkt. No. 75), contained in its Reply to its motion for summary 23 24 1 judgment (Dkt. No. 69). For the reasons stated below, the Court denies the motion to strike and 2 provides Protingent an opportunity to submit a supplemental Reply. 3 Protingent filed a motion for Summary Judgment on October 26, 2023, and the motion was

4 noted for Friday, November 17, 2023. Dkt. No. 69. Under Local Civil Rule 7(d), Defendant Lisa 5 Gustafson-Feis’s Response to the motion was due on or before Monday, November 13, 2023. 6 Gustafson-Feis, proceeding pro se, filed a response at 6:50 p.m. PST on Thursday, November 16, 7 2023. Dkt. No. 74. The Response is 17 pages long and contains 112 paragraphs. Id. at 17. 8 Protingent filed a Reply on Friday, November 17, 2023, requesting that the Court strike the 9 untimely Response and providing a short Reply. Dkt. No. 75 at 1-3. 10 It is within the Court’s discretion to consider an untimely response. Hahn v. Waddington, 11 782 F. App’x 607, 609 (9th Cir. 2019); N.H. Ins. Co. v. Blaze Const. Inc., No. 93-35096, 1994 WL 12 274032, at *3 (9th Cir. June 20, 1994) (citing Cia. Petrolera Caribe, Inc. v. Arco Caribbean, Inc.,

13 754 F.2d 404, 408–10 (1st Cir. 1985) (it is not an abuse of discretion to consider a late response if 14 the other party replies and is not prejudiced)). “The Supreme Court has instructed the federal 15 courts to liberally construe the ‘inartful pleading’ of pro se litigants.” Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 16 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987) (quoting Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982)). 17 Given Gustafson-Feis’s status as a pro se litigant, and the fact that the motion before the 18 Court is dispositive, the Court exercises its discretion to DENY Protingent’s motion to strike 19 Gustafson-Feis’s untimely Response. The Court admonishes the parties that future late filings are 20 unlikely to be accepted. 21 22

23 //////// 24 1 If Protingent wishes to file a supplemental reply, it may do so no later than Friday, 2 December 1, 2023. The clerk is DIRECTED to re-note Protingent’s motion (Dkt. No. 69) for 3 December 1, 2023.

4 Dated this 21st day of November, 2023. 5 A 6 Kymberly K. Evanson 7 United States District Judge

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24