Westhoff Vertriebsges mbH v. Berg

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WESTHOFF Case No. 22-cv-0938-BAS-SBC VERTRIESBGSGES MBH, 12 a German limited liability ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 13 company, MOTION FOR MISCELLANEOUS RELIEF (ECF No. 75) 14 Plaintiff,

15 v. 16 CHRISTOPHER BERG, an individual; BLUESKYE 17 CREATIVE, INC., a 18 California corporation; and DOES 1–10, inclusive; 19 Defendants. 20 21 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Miscellaneous Relief. (ECF No. 75.) 22 Plaintiff filed this motion on November 10, 2023, after realizing it had late-filed its 23 Objection to the Sanctions Order (ECF No. 74) due to incorrectly calendaring the deadline. 24 Upon considering the Plaintiff’s ex parte application and the relevant four-factor test, the 25 Court finds Plaintiff failed to timely act due to its counsel’s excusable neglect. See Fed. 26 R. Civ. P. 6(b); Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1261 (9th Cir. 2010) 27 (enumerating a four-factor equitable test for determining excusable neglect); see also 28 Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd., 507 U.S. 380, 392 (1993) (“[I]t is clear 1 || that ‘excusable neglect’ under Rule 6(b) is a somewhat ‘elastic concept’ and is not limited 2 strictly to omissions caused by circumstances beyond the control of the movant.”’). Thus, 3 ||the Court retroactively extends the time period for Plaintiff to file its objection to 4 ||November 10, 2023 and will consider Plaintiff's objection to the sanctions order. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 A , 7 || DATED: November 15, 2023 Lin A (Bashan. 6 g United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4.