See, e.g., Lacy v. United States, 2023 WL 4317659, at *13 (C.D. Cal. May 3, 2023) (construing affidavit attached with late-filed summary-judgment motion “as a motion to extend pursuant to Rule 6(b)(1)(B)”); Rios v. Nyenke, 2022 WL 11141192, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2022) (construing objections to a magistrate judge's order “as incorporating a motion under Rule 6 . . . requesting an extension of time due to excusable neglect”); Rivera v. Marriott Int'l, Inc., 2020 WL 1984891, at *2 n.2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2020) (construing “apology and explanation for the delay as a motion for extension of time under Rule 6(b)”); see also United States v. $163,500 in U.S. Currency, 2024 WL 1603409, at *2 (D. Nev. Mar. 25, 2024) (construing pro se plaintiff's late responsive filings “as including an implicit motion for an extension of time due to excusable neglect”); N.L. v. Children's Hosp. L.A., 2019 WL 10854340, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2019) (not requiring formal noticed motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(1)(B) “in the interest of efficiency and judicial economy”); Taylor v. Garrison Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2018 WL 5094912, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2018) (exercising discretion to consider plaintiffs' two-day-late response to summary-judgment motion despite plaintiffs failing “to file a formal motion demonstrating excusable neglect”).