Walter Shaune Silva v. Santander Consumer USA Inc. et al.

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: October 15, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-06057
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 WALTER SHAUNE SILVA, CASE NO. 3:24-cv-06057-DGE 11 Plaintiff, ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S 12 v. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO RESPOND 13 SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC. et TO MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON al., THE PLEADINGS (DKT. NO. 46) 14 Defendant. 15 16 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time (Dkt. No. 17 46) to respond to the motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by Defendants Trans Union, 18 LLC, Experian Information Solutions, Inc., and Equifax Information Services, LLC (collectively, 19 the “CRAs”). (Dkt. No. 43.) Defendants oppose the motion. (Dkt. No. 48.) 20 On September 18, Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that 21 Plaintiff cannot allege facts to support his claims of breach of contract, conversion, or violation 22 of the Federal Credit Reporting Act. (Id. at 7.) Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, filed his 23 motion for extension of time on October 2, 2025, requesting an additional 21 days to respond to 24 1 Defendants’ motion. (Dkt. No. 46 at 1.) Plaintiff’s current deadline to respond to the motion is 2 October 16. (Id.) 3 Plaintiff argues good cause for an extension exists for several reasons: (1) the complexity 4 of the case; (2) the fact Plaintiff faces “overlapping deadlines,” creating ‘simultaneous

5 preparation demands” to respond; (3) “evidentiary developments” since date of filing that 6 address arguments raised in Defendants’ motion; (4) “ongoing FCRA compliance issues” that 7 impact Defendants’ motion; (5) Defendants filed the motion for judgment on the pleadings two 8 days after Defendant Santander Consumer USA, Inc.’s motion to compel arbitration (see Dkt. 9 No. 41), which created a “compressed timeline” for Plaintiff to respond; and (6) the extension 10 does not prejudice Defendants. (Dkt. No. 46 at 1.) 11 The Court disagrees there is good cause for an extension. Plaintiff has not provided any 12 details as to how the current response deadline cannot be met through a reasonable exercise of 13 diligence. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Fed. 14 R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4)). He does not show how this case is sufficiently complex such that the

15 deadline should be extended on that basis, nor how he is unable to meet the “overlapping 16 deadlines” in this case of which he complains. (Dkt. No. 46 at 1.) Further, the fact Defendants 17 engaged in “strategic timing choices” to file their motion for judgment on the pleadings around 18 the same time Defendant Santander Consumer USA, Inc. filed its own dispositive motion is not 19 grounds to allow Plaintiff to deviate from the scheduling order. (Id.) Defendants are not 20 required to file motions on a timeframe that is convenient for Plaintiff. Finally, Plaintiff’s 21 request vaguely states there are “evidentiary developments,” and case developments related to 22 “ongoing FCRA compliance issues,” but provides no facts to fill in details as to how these 23 developments impact his ability to respond to Defendants’ motion. (Id.)

24 1 These broad assertions that more time is needed, without filling in the gaps, are 2 insufficient to meet the standard for good cause under Rule 16(b)(4). Plaintiff’s motion for 3 extension of time is DENIED and all deadlines remain unchanged. 4 Plaintiff should immediately file his response to Defendants’ motion for judgment on the

5 pleadings.1 6 7 Dated this 15th day of October 2025. 8 a 9 David G. Estudillo 10 United States District Judge

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22 1 The Court notes that Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time was noted for October 16, 2025, the same noting date as the motion for judgment on the pleadings. Notwithstanding, the Court 23 issues this order today to direct Plaintiff to immediately file his response because the Court will begin considering the motion for judgment on the pleadings on October 16, 2025. 24