Tori Wiltz v. Mountain America Credit Union

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Tori Wiltz, No. CV-25-03911-PHX-DWL

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Mountain America Credit Union,

13 Defendant. 14 15 On October 21, 2025, Plaintiff filed the complaint (Doc. 1) and a “motion to deem 16 complaint timely filed as of October 20, 2025, pursuant to FRCP 6(b)(1)(B)” (Doc. 7). The 17 motion explains that “Plaintiff’s claims allege violations of federal civil rights and equal 18 credit opportunity laws, and the statute of limitations for these claims was set to expire on 19 October 20, 2025,” but “[d]ue to a known technical failure in the electronic filing system, 20 specifically an undisclosed incompatibility with the Google Chrome web browser, the 21 Court did not receive Plaintiff’s Complaint despite Plaintiff’s counsel completing all 22 necessary steps for filing, including uploading all required documents and completing the 23 payment of the $405.00 filing fee” on October 20, 2025, “the date on which Plaintiff’s 24 counsel attempted to electronically file the Complaint through the Court’s CM/ECF 25 system.” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff provides detailed facts establishing that Plaintiff took the 26 necessary steps to file the complaint on October 20, 2025 but was informed the following 27 day via an email from the courthouse staff that the filing documents “were never received” 28 and that “[t]he file date will be the date that the documents are received by the District 1 Court.” (Id. at 3.) Specifically, Plaintiff attributes the issue to “incompatibility between 2 the Google Chrome web browser and Pay.gov which causes known technical issues and 3 glitches.” (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff provides evidence in support of her averments. (Docs. 7-1, 4 7-2, 7-3, 7-4, 7-5.) 5 Plaintiff “seeks relief based on excusable neglect pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 6 Procedure 6(b)(1)(B).” (Doc. 7 at 2.) In addition to setting forth the legal standard for 7 Rule 6(b)(1)(B), Plaintiff notes that “the District of Arizona’s Electronic Case Filing 8 Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual specifically addresses technical failures, 9 providing that ‘A registered user whose filing is untimely due to a technical failure may 10 seek relief from the court.’” (Id. at 4.) The bulk of the motion discusses the Pioneer 11 factors1 and argues that each of these factors weighs in favor of a determination that the 12 excusable neglect standard is met. (Id. at 5-7.) Alternatively, Plaintiff argues that “the 13 Court’s electronic filing system failed to provide adequate notice of browser compatibility 14 requirements,” and this “lack of clear notice regarding browser compatibility requirements 15 further supports the finding of excusable neglect.” (Id. at 7.) 16 If Rule 6(b)(1)(B) were applicable, the Court would have no trouble determining 17 that the Pioneer factors resoundingly favor a finding of excusable neglect. However, it 18 appears that Rule 6(b)(1)(B) is inapplicable. In the context of bringing an action after the 19 statute of limitations has run, “long-settled equitable-tolling principles instruct that 20 generally, a litigant seeking equitable tolling bears the burden of establishing two elements: 21 (1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary 22 circumstances stood in his way,” such that “a garden variety claim of excusable neglect . . . 23 does not warrant equitable tolling.” Kwai Fun Wong v. Beebe, 732 F.3d 1030, 1052 (9th 24 Cir. 2013) (cleaned up). See also Garcia v. Allen, 2024 WL 3938921, *2 (E.D. Cal. 2024) 25 (“Pioneer . . . involved filing deadlines . . . which courts may extend upon a finding of 26 excusable neglect. This case involves a statute of limitations, and a late filing can only be 27 excused if petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling, which does not extend to claims of

28 1 See Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380 (1993). 1 excusable neglect.”) (citations omitted); Bulek v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, 2024 WL 2 1436134, *2 (D. Or. 2024) (“The parties disagree over the applicable standard for excusing 3 or tolling the statute of limitations. Ms. Bulek argues that she can establish excusable 4 neglect . . . [while] KFH argues that equitable tolling, not excusable neglect, is the 5 applicable standard here. . . . I find that equitable tolling is the correct standard here. Good 6 cause and excusable neglect under Rule 4(m) do not apply because Ms. Bulek is up against 7 a statute of limitations defense that is unrelated to any failure to meet the deadlines in the 8 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”). 9 “Equitable tolling is typically granted when litigants are unable to file timely 10 petitions as a result of external circumstances beyond their direct control” and “is typically 11 denied in cases where a litigant’s own mistake clearly contributed to his predicament.” 12 Harris v. Carter, 515 F.3d 1051, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008). Although Plaintiff has argued that 13 she was unable to timely file her complaint as a result of external circumstances beyond 14 her direct control, the Court would not ordinarily make such a determination on an ex parte 15 basis. Indeed, “the law typically treats a limitations defense as an affirmative defense that 16 the defendant must raise at the pleadings stage and that is subject to rules of forfeiture and 17 waiver,” John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 552 U.S. 130, 133 (2008), such that 18 typically, the Court does not have occasion to consider limitations issues without the 19 benefit of adversarial briefing. Because Defendant is not yet participating in this action 20 and has not had the opportunity to oppose Plaintiff’s arguments, the Court will not make 21 an equitable tolling determination on this record. 22 Furthermore, the District of Arizona’s Electronic Case Filing Administrative 23 Policies and Procedures Manual provides that “[a] registered user whose filing is untimely 24 due to a technical failure may seek relief from the court.” ECF Administrative Manual 25 § II(O)(2)(f). “Technical failure” is defined as “a malfunction of court-owned/leased 26 hardware, software, and/or telecommunications facility which results in the inability of a 27 registered user to submit a filing electronically.” Id. § I(A). On the other hand, “[p]roblems 28 on the filer’s end, such as problems with the filer’s Internet service provider (ISP), or || hardware or software problems, will not generally excuse an untimely filing.” Jd. § Il¢O)(2)(b). 3 “Under similar facts, the courts have . . . denied similar motions to deem documents 4|| properly filed.” Chambered Custom Firearms LLC v. Babcock, 2024 WL 4371712, *8 (D. 5|| Ariz. 2024). For example, in Babcock, a case where the filers alleged that Chrome had 6|| interfered with filing, the court determined that the record was “insufficiently developed 7\|| for the Court to find the requisite ‘technical failure’ Petitioners urge under the ECF 8 || Administrative Manual” and denied the motion without prejudice. Jd. 9 For these reasons, the motion is denied without prejudice. Once Defendant is participating in this action, if either party chooses to bring the statute of limitations issue 11 || to the Court’s attention, the issue will be resolved following full briefing. 12 Accordingly, 13 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to deem complaint timely filed (Doc. 7) is denied without prejudice. 15 Dated this 22nd day of October, 2025. 16

Dominic W. Lanza 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-4-