Opinion
Case No. 2:11-CV-00188-KJD-RJJ.
October 5, 2011
ORDER
Presently before the Court is Defendant Flangas McMillan Law Group, Inc.'s Motion to Extend Time (#25). Plaintiff filed a response in opposition (#28) to which Defendant replied (#29). Originally, Defendant sought an extension from June 13, 2011 to June 28, 2011 to file its oppositions to Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment and motion to dismiss. Briefing on the extension was completed by June 27, 2011. However, due to a clerical error, a non-public, court only notation was made in the record on June 21, 2011, terminating the pending motion. Despite this error which made it appear on the court's docket that the motion had been ruled on, Plaintiff filed Notices (#30/38) of Defendant's failure to oppose the pending motions to dismiss and for partial summary judgment on July 6, 2011 and August 22, 2011. Defendant has still failed to file any response to the motions.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) allows a court to accept a late filing when the failure to act timely is the result of excusable neglect. Late filings caused by inadvertence, mistake or carelessness are permitted under the Rule with approval of the court. See Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 388 (1993). While the Court may have been inclined to accept a late filing or grant Defendant's request for a short extension, Defendant has now exceeded its original request by three months. The mere filing of a request to make a late filing is typically accompanied by the document that the party seeks leave to file later, or pending a ruling by the court, the party files the late briefing within the time requested. Though failing to file any response, Defendant did find the time to file a motion to abstain or stay. This adds credence to Plaintiff's argument that Defendant never intended to oppose the motions, but merely sought to delay their resolution, in order to file the motion to abstain.
Accordingly, Defendant has only shown good cause to file its response to the motions no later than June 28, 2011. Therefore, to the extent that Defendant sought leave to file the responses in opposition later than June 28, 2011, Defendant's Motion for an Extension (#25) is DENIED.