Timothy Panzl v. United Airlines, Inc., Eric Mennel, and Does 1 to 100, inclusive

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 TIMOTHY PANZL, Case No.: 3:25-cv-2046-WQH-DEB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. MENNEL, and DOES 1 to 100, 15 inclusive, 16 Defendants. 17 HAYES, Judge: 18 The matter before the Court is Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application to File Plaintiff’s 19 Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Partially Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended 20 Complaint Out of Time (“Ex Parte Application”), filed on October 20, 2025. (ECF No. 15.) 21 On September 5, 2025, Plaintiff Timothy Panzl (“Plaintiff”) filed a First Amended 22 Complaint (“FAC”). (ECF No. 8.) On September 19, 2025, Defendant United Airlines, Inc. 23 (“United”) filed a Motion to Partially Dismiss Plaintiff’s FAC (“Motion to Dismiss”) with 24 a hearing date of October 27, 2025. (ECF No. 12.) 25 On October 16, 2025, Plaintiff filed an Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to 26 Dismiss. (ECF No. 13.) On October 20, 2025, Defendant United filed a Reply in Support 27 of its Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 14.) 28 1 On October 20, 2025, Plaintiff filed the pending Ex Parte Application, requesting 2 the Court to accept the late filing of his October 16, 2025 Opposition. (ECF No. 15.) On 3 October 21, 2025, Defendant United filed a Notice of Intent to Oppose Plaintiff’s Ex Parte 4 Application. (ECF No. 16.) On October 22, 2025, Defendant United filed an Opposition to 5 Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application. (ECF No. 17.) 6 Local Civil Rule 7.1(e)(2) provides that: 7 [E]ach party opposing a motion, application, or order to show cause must file that opposition or statement of non-opposition with the Clerk and serve the 8 movant or the movant's attorney not later than fourteen (14) calendar days 9 prior to the noticed hearing . . . However, if the second Monday prior to the Monday hearing is a holiday, then the opposition papers must be filed and 10 served no later than three (3) Fridays prior to the noticed hearing. 11 S.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7.1(e)(2). Here, Defendant United filed its Motion to Dismiss with a 12 noticed hearing date of October 27, 2025. (See ECF No. 12.) Pursuant to Local Rule 13 7.1(e)(2), Plaintiff’s Opposition was due on October 10, 2025—three Fridays prior to the 14 noticed hearing date of October 27, 2025—because October 13 is a federal holiday. 15 Plaintiff instead filed his Opposition on October 16, 2025, six days late. 16 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) states: 17 When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for 18 good cause, extend the time: (A) with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is 19 made, before the original time or its extension expires; or 20 (B) on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect. 21 Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1). Plaintiff filed his Ex Parte Application to permit late filing on 22 October 20, 2025—ten days after the October 10, 2025 deadline set by L.R. 7.1(e)(2) 23 expired. (See ECF No. 15.) Because Plaintiff filed the pending Ex Parte Application “after 24 the time has expired,” the Court has discretion to grant Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application 25 upon a finding of excusable neglect and good cause. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). 26 “‘[E]xcusable neglect’ under Rule 6(b) is a somewhat elastic concept and is not 27 limited strictly to omissions caused by circumstances beyond the control of the movant.” 28 1 Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993) 2 (quotation omitted). “To determine whether a party's failure to meet a deadline constitutes 3 ‘excusable neglect,’ courts must apply a four-factor equitable test, examining: (1) the 4 danger of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact 5 on the proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the movant acted in good 6 faith.” Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1261 (9th Cir. 2010). 7 Plaintiff contends that the “brief delay resulted from a calendaring oversight: the 8 calendar clerk responsible for tracking deadlines in this matter was not included on the 9 service list for this motion . . . The omission [from the calendar] was not detected until after 10 the deadline had passed.” (ECF No. 15 at 3.) Plaintiff contends that the delay does not 11 prejudice Defendant United because it “has already filed its Reply . . . and the Court’s 12 schedule will not be materially impacted.” (Id. at 3.) 13 In response to Plaintiff’s contention that the delay occurred because a calendar clerk 14 was not included on the service list, Defendant United attaches an exhibit demonstrating 15 that the Notice of Electronic Filing of the Motion to Dismiss was electronically mailed to 16 several of Plaintiff’s attorneys. (ECF No. 17 at 2; ECF No. 17-3 at 2.) Defendant United 17 contends that it suffered prejudice because “Plaintiff’s untimely filing . . . significantly 18 shortened the time period for which [Defendant United] had to prepare a reply brief” and 19 caused Defendant United’s counsel to “work on the Reply brief over the weekend.” (ECF 20 No. 17 at 3.) 21 After considering the parties’ submissions, the Court finds no evidence of bad faith 22 and concludes that Plaintiff’s delay in filing his Opposition was an inadvertent calendaring 23 mistake. A calendaring mistake, while not a “compelling excuse,” may serve as the basis 24 for finding excusable neglect. Pincay v. Andrews, 389 F.3d 853, 860 (9th Cir. 2004) (en 25 banc) (affirming finding of excusable neglect caused by calendaring mistake). No danger 26 of prejudice to the non-movant exists here because Defendant United has already filed its 27 Reply and Plaintiff’s untimely filing occurred early in the proceedings. See Anticancer, 28 Inc. v. Fujifilm Med. Systems U.S.A., Inc., No. 09-cv-1131, 2010 WL 11462856, at *2 (S.D. 1 Apr. 9, 2010) (finding no prejudice when the delay resulted from inadvertence and 2 || occurred early in the proceedings). Additionally, the Court will provide Defendant United 3 opportunity to submit supplemental briefing. The Court finds that Plaintiff’s failure to 4 || file a timely Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss constitutes excusable neglect. The Court 5 ||further finds that good cause exists to grant Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application. See 6 || Ahanchian, 624 F.3d at 1259 (finding good cause to grant a one-week extension where 7 || there was no indication of bad faith or prejudice). 8 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application (ECF No. 15) is 9 || granted. The Court excuses the late filing of Plaintiff's Opposition (ECF No. 13) and will 10 consider the Opposition when ruling on Defendant United’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 11 12). 12 Given the late filing of Plaintiff's Opposition, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 13 || Defendant United may file supplemental briefing in support of its Motion to Dismiss (ECF 14 || No. 12) no later than seven days from the entry of this Order. 15 16 || Dated: October 27, 2025 BE: eg Ze. A a 17 Hon, William Q. Hayes 18 United States District Court 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28