Opinion
3:21-cv-00639-BEN-DEB
06-15-2021
SCOTT J. RICKES, an individual, Plaintiff, v. COAST PROFESSIONAL, INC., Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR EXTENSION [ECF NO. 6]
ROGER T. BENITEZ United States District Judge
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff SCOTT J. RICKES ("Plaintiff) brings this action for violations of the (1) Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. ("FDCPA"), and (2) Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Cal. Civ. Code §1788, et seq. ("RFDCPA"), against Defendant COAST PROFESSIONAL, INC. Compl., ECF No. 1.
Before the Court is the Joint Motion to Extend the Time for Defendant to Respond to the Complaint (the "Joint Motion"). ECF No. 6. After considering the papers submitted, supporting documentation, and applicable law, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion.
II. BACKGROUND
On April 13, 2021, Plaintiff filed the complaint in this matter, alleging Defendant unlawfully attempted to collect on a debt in violation of the FDCPA and RFDCPA. See Compl., ECF No. 1.
On April 21, 2021, Plaintiff served Defendant with the complaint, meaning Defendant's deadline to respond is May 12, 2021. ECF No. 3; see also ECF No. 4 at 2.
On May 10, 2021, Plaintiff and Defendant filed a Joint Motion, seeking to extend Defendant's deadline to respond to June 11, 2021. ECF No. 4.
On June 11, 2021, Plaintiff and Defendant filed the instant Joint Motion, seeking to extend Defendant's deadline to respond from June 11, 2021 to June 21, 2021. ECF No. 6.
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. DISCUSSION
The Court notes that even if both parties agree to an extension, the extension is not effective absent court approval, and in this case, the parties filed this Joint Motion on the same day on Defendant's deadline to respond, leaving the Court less than twenty-four (24) hours to address the Joint Motion. As a result, Defendant's deadline to respond has already passed. However, both Parties request an additional ten (10) day extension of time for Defendant to respond to the complaint to continue discussions regarding settlement of the case. ECF No. 6 at 2, f4. Further, the parties submitted the Joint Motion on the day the responsive pleading was due. Thus, the Court finds good cause for the extension exists for the Court to retroactively extend Defendant's deadline to respond.
V. CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, the Court GRANTS the Parties' requested extension. Defendant's deadline to file a responsive pleading is extended from June 11, 2021 to June 21, 2021. Absent a strong showing of good cause, no further extensions will be granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.