Opinion
Case No.: 3:21-cv-00451-BEN-KSC
04-09-2021
AILEEN MARQUEZ, an individual, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT STORES NATIONAL BANK, Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT DEPARTMENT STORES NATIONAL BANK TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADING
[ECF No. 4]
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Aileen Marquez, an individual ("Plaintiff"), brings this action against Defendant Department Stores National Bank ("Defendant") for violations of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1788-1778.32 (the "RFDCPA"), and Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 (the "TCPA"). ECF No. 1. Before the Court is the Joint Motion to Extend Defendant's Time to Respond to the Complaint (the "Joint Motion"). ECF No. 4. After considering the papers submitted, supporting documentation, and applicable law, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion.
II. BACKGROUND
On March 14, 2021, Plaintiff filed her complaint against Defendant alleging three claims for relief for (1) violations of the RFDCPA; (2) negligent violations of the TCPA; and (3) willful violations of the TCPA. ECF No. 1.
On March 18, 2021, Plaintiff served Defendant's agent with the summons and complaint, ECF No. 3, meaning Defendant's responsive pleading was due twenty-one days later, or by April 8, 2021, see ECF No. 4 at 2:4-5. See also FED. R. CIV. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i). On April 9, 2021, Plaintiff and Defendant filed the Joint Motion. ECF No. 4. III. LEGAL STANDARD
A defendant must 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. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i). "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. DISCUSSION
On April 9, 2021, when Plaintiff and Defendant filed the Joint Motion, Defendant's responsive pleading was already one day late. See ECF No. 4. at 2:4-5; see also FED. R. CIV. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i). Even though Plaintiff agreed to the extension, court approval is still required for an extension of time to respond. S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 12.1. Despite the untimeliness of the Joint Motion, the Parties advise that they are engaged in settlement discussions and require additional time to determine whether a settlement is feasible. ECF No. 4 at 2:6-8. The Parties ask the Court to provide Defendant with a thirty-day extension, making Defendant's responsive pleading due on May 7, 2021. Id. at 3:12-14. V. CONCLUSION
The Court finds that pursuing settlement discussions represents good cause for extending Defendant's time to respond to the Complaint. As such, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion. Defendant's responsive pleading is due on Friday, May 7, 2021. Defendant is cautioned to adhere to the deadlines provided in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules going forward.
IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: April 9, 2021
/s/_________
HON. ROGER T. BENITEZ
United States District Judge