Opinion
3:21-cv-00841-BEN-RBB
09-01-2021
HECTOR FERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PROGRESSIVE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS; EMERGENCY AND ACUTE CARE MEDICAL CORP., Defendant.
ORDER ON JOINT MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO RESPOND [ECF NOS. 3, 4]
HON. ROGER T. BENITEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff HECTOR FERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, (“Plaintiff”) brings this action, alleging violation of various fair debt collection laws against Defendant R.M. GALICIA, INC., a California corporation doing business as PROGRESSIVE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (“PMS”), and EMERGENCY AND ACUTE CARE MEDICAL CORP., a California corporation (“EACMC”) (collectively, “Defendants”). ECF No. 1. Before the Court is the Joint Motion for Additional Time to Respond to the Complaint (the “Joint Motion”). ECF No. 3. After considering the papers submitted, supporting documentation, and applicable law, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion.
II. BACKGROUND
On April 30, 2021, Plaintiff filed the instance Class Action Complaint for violations of the (1) Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.; (2) Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Cal. Civ. § 1788 et seq.; (3) California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof Code § 17200 et seq.; and (4) California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 et seq. Complaint, ECF No. 1.
On July 28, 2021, Plaintiff served PMS. ECF No. 3 at 2, ¶ 2. PMS’ deadline to respond to the Complaint was due on August 18, 2021. Id. at 2, ¶ 3.
On August 18, 2021, Plaintiff and PMS filed the Joint Motion, seeking an extension of time for PMS to respond to the Complaint in order to allow PMS to complete an internal investigation of Plaintiff s claims and explore potential early settlement. Id. at 2, ¶ 4. On September 1, 2021, Plaintiff and PMS filed a second Joint Motion.
III. LEGAL STANDARD
Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a defendant to file a responsive pleading within either (1) twenty-one days of being served with the summons and complaint or (2) sixty days after the request for a waiver was sent. Pursuant to the Local Rules, “[extensions of time for answering, or moving to dismiss a complaint will only be secured by obtaining the approval of a judicial officer, who will base the decision on a showing of good case.” S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 12.1. Thus, “[i]n the Southern District, court approval is required for any extension of time to answer or move to dismiss the complaint.” Phillips, Virginia A., et al., Rutter Group Prac. Guide: Fed. Civ. Pro. Before Trial, § 8:913 (The Rutter Group April 2020).
IV. ORDER
The Court finds good cause exists to justify the requested extension. Thus, the Court retroactively grants PMS a thirty (30) day extension of time to respond to Monday, September 20, 2021.
IT IS SO ORDERED.