Taylor v. Kelety

Opinion

LULA MAE TAYLOR, Case No.: 20-cv-1987-DMS-AGS

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR v. EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND JULIA CRAIG KELETY, et al., Defendants. On December 9, 2020, Plaintiff Lula Mae Taylor, proceeding pro se, filed a motion for extension of time to respond to Defendants Tracey Martino, Stifter Law Corp., and John Joseph Stifter IV’s (“Defendants”) motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff requested this extension after the time to respond to Defendants’ motion had expired. Accordingly, to meet the good cause requirement for extension of time, Plaintiff must show excusable neglect. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B). The determination of whether neglect is excusable is an equitable one that depends on at least four factors: “(1) the danger of prejudice to the non-moving party, (2) the length of delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, (3) the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant, and (4) whether the moving party’s conduct was in good faith.” Pincay v. Andrews, 389 F.3d 853, 855 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (citing Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993)). After considering these factors, the Court finds Plaintiff's neglect is excusable. Plaintiff is 82 years old and states she did not have sufficient time to respond due to disabilities and medical conditions. (ECF No. 10 at 7.) Plaintiff did attempt to meet and confer with Defendants on November 20, 2020. (/d.) Allowing Plaintiff additional time to file will not unduly prejudice Defendants or have a significant impact on the judicial proceedings. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's request for an extension of time to respond. Plaintiff shall file her opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss within fourteen (14) days of this Order. Dated: December 21, 2020 J rn yn. Hon. Dana M. Sabraw United States District Judge