Opinion
2:22-CV-01399-TL
01-11-2023
JOHN DOE, Plaintiff(s), v. REVATURE LLC et al, Defendant(s).
MINUTE ORDER
The following Minute Order is made at the direction of the Court, the Honorable Tana Lin, United States District Judge:
(1) On January 10, 2023, the Court referred Plaintiff John Doe's motion for appointed counsel (the “Motion for Counsel,” Dkt. No. 10) to the Screening Committee of the Pro Bono Panel. Dkt. No. 22. The Committee must provide the Court with a recommendation as to whether counsel should be appointed for Plaintiff by February 8. Id.
(2) Later that day, still on January 10, Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration and stay this case (the “Motion to Compel Arbitration,” Dkt. No. 23) and a motion to extend Defendants' time to respond to the Complaint (the “Motion to Extend,” Dkt. No. 25). Defendants acknowledge that Defendant Revature LLC's response to the Complaint was due on January 10 and the individual Defendants' responses to the Complaint are due February 19. Dkt. No. 25 at 2; see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(a)(1)(A). Defendants request that their deadline to respond to the Complaint be extended to 14 days after the resolution of the Motion to Compel Arbitration. Dkt. No. 25 at 3.
(3) Plaintiff responded the next day, objecting to an extension largely on the basis of Defendants' belated request for an extension and the merits of the Motion to Compel Arbitration. Dkt. No. 27 at 2-3.
(4) The Court agrees with Plaintiff that Defendants' delay in bringing their request for an extension is not excusable. The Court requires motions for the extension of a deadline to be filed at least three business days before the deadline and may deny, strike, or otherwise ignore untimely briefs. See Judge Tana Lin, Standing Order for All Civil Cases, Section II.G (last updated Apr. 26, 2022); see also Local Civil Rule (“LCR”) 7(j) (“A motion for relief from a deadline should, whenever possible, be filed sufficiently in advance of the deadline to allow the court to rule on the motion prior to the deadline. Parties should not assume that the motion will be granted ....”). Defendants have provided no reason, much less “a true, unforeseen emergency,” see LCR 7(j), for why they have waited until the day of their deadline to seek its extension.
(5) Nonetheless, the Court finds that it is appropriate to consider the Motion to Extend and grant it in this particular instance. Requiring Defendants to file a response to the Complaint when the Parties' dispute may be later resolved through mandatory arbitrationcould result in unnecessary duplication of efforts and wasted resources for all Parties and the Court. Also, Defendants may very well have to revise their response to the Complaint after the Motion to Compel Arbitration is resolved or if the dispute proceeds to arbitration the arbitration process concludes.
The Court expresses no view on the merits of the Motion to Compel Arbitration.
(6) Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS:
(a) Defendants' Motion to Extend (Dkt. No. 25) is GRANTED. Defendants' response to the Complaint is due fourteen (14) days after the Court's ruling on the Motion to Compel Arbitration, unless the ruling results in a stay of the case.
Plaintiff suffers no prejudice from a ruling on the Motion to Extend in advance of its noting date of January 20, given that Plaintiff has already responded to the motion. Indeed, Plaintiff has previewed that he may file a motion for default judgment tomorrow (Dkt. No. 27 at 3), and so this Order may save him time and resources.
(b) The case, including the Motion to Compel Arbitration (Dkt. No. 23), is STAYED. The Court will consider any motions by the Parties after the Motion for Counsel is resolved and the stay is lifted.
(c) Defendants are CAUTIONED to abide by the rules and orders governing this litigation for the remaining duration of this litigation.