Opinion
3:22-cv-00521-MMD-CSD
02-09-2023
CHAD BOURNE, an individual Plaintiff, v. ROOKIES INC. D/B/A ROOKIE'S SPORTS BAR AND GRILL; DOES I through X; and ROE Corporations XI through XX, inclusive, Defendant.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C., JOSHUA A. SLIKER, ESQ., Nevada Bar No. 12493, HILARY A. WILLIAMS, ESQ., Nevada Bar No. 14645, Attorneys for Defendant Rookies, Inc. d/b/a Rookie's Sports Bar and Grill.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C., JOSHUA A. SLIKER, ESQ., Nevada Bar No. 12493, HILARY A. WILLIAMS, ESQ., Nevada Bar No. 14645, Attorneys for Defendant Rookies, Inc. d/b/a Rookie's Sports Bar and Grill.
DEFENDANT ROOKIES INC. D/B/A ROOKIE'S SPORTS BAR AND GRILL'S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT (FIRST REQUEST)
Defendant ROOKIES INC. d/b/a ROOKIE'S SPORTS BAR AND GRILL (“Defendant”), by and through its counsel Jackson Lewis P.C., hereby brings the instant Motion to Extend Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Complaint. Defendant's response to the Complaint is currently due on February 8, 2023. Defendant seeks an extension up to and including February 22, 2023. This is Defendant's first request to extend time to file its response to the Complaint. This Motion is based on the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities, all pleadings and documents on file with the Court, and any oral argument the Court deems proper.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I. BACKGROUND
This case appears to be an employment discrimination case brought by Plaintiff Chad Bourne (“Plaintiff') against Defendant. Plaintiff served the Summons and Complaint on Defendant on January 18, 2023, and the deadline to respond is February 8, 2023.
However, Defendant's counsel was only retained on February 8, 2023, the same day as the deadline to file a response to the Complaint. Defendant promptly called Plaintiff's counsel to evaluate the possibility of filing a stipulation to extend time to respond to the Complaint but was unable to reach Plaintiff's counsel.
As Defendant's counsel was only recently retained, Defendant's counsel has not been able to investigate the allegations of Plaintiff's Complaint or Defendant's defenses thus prompting this Motion.
II. LEGAL ARGUMENT
Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1) provides that when an act must be done within a specified time, the Court “may, for good cause, extend the time . . . with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before the original time or its extension expires . . . .”[1] “Good cause” is not a rigorous or high standard, and courts have construed the test broadly. Ahanchion v. Kenan Pictures, 624 F.3d 1253 (9th Cir. 2010). Rule 6(b) “[is] to be liberally construed to effectuate the general purpose of seeing that cases are tried on the merits.” Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 459 (9th Cir. 1983); Wong v. Regents of the Univ. of Calif., 410 F.3d 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Of course, courts should not mindlessly enforce deadlines.”). Indeed, the “good cause” standard “primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” In re W. States Wholesale Nat. Gas Antitrust Litig., 715 F.3d 716, 737 (9th Cir. 2013). In general, an application for extension of time under Rule 6(b)(1)(A) will be granted in the absence of bad faith. Ahanchion, 624 F.3d at 1259 (quoting 4B CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT & ARTHUR R. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 1165 (3d ed. 2004)) (internal quotations omitted).
Here, there is good cause to extend the time for Defendant to file its response to Plaintiff's Complaint to February 22, 2023. Defendant's counsel is evaluating Defendant's defenses and the allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint. However, Defendant's counsel has had insufficient time to investigate the allegations and prepare Defendant's response having been retained on the date the response is due. Defendant's counsel will also need time to confer with Defendant regarding the response.
As such, Defendant requires time to have a fair and sufficient opportunity to investigate and evaluate these matters and prepare its response. Accordingly, Defendant expressly reserves the right to assert defenses, including without limitation, motions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b), as no such motion is made here and therefore none are waived. Szanto v. Marina Marketplace 1, LLC, No. 3:11-cv-00394-RCJ-VPC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168028, at *10 (D. Nev. Nov. 26, 2013). Defendant has acted diligently to retain defense counsel and begin preparing its defense. No prior extensions have been requested, and this request is not made in bad faith or to delay the proceedings.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant respectfully requests the Court grant its Motion to Extend Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Complaint up to and including February 22, 2023.
IT IS SO ORDERED.