Tillman v. Kokor

Full title: DAVID TILLMAN, Plaintiff, v. KOKOR, M.D., Defendant.

Court: United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Jul 1, 2021

1:18-cv-01171-DAD-HBK (E.D. Cal. Jul. 1, 2021)

Opinion

1:18-cv-01171-DAD-HBK

07-01-2021

DAVID TILLMAN, Plaintiff, v. KOKOR, M.D., Defendant.

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMOVE DEFAULT JUDGMENT, CONSTRUED AS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (DOC. NO. 34)

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

Before the Court is Plaintiff's pleading labeled “motion to remove default judgment” filed December 22, 2020. (Doc. No. 34). Plaintiff, having failed to timely respond to Defendant's summary judgment motion, asks the Court to set aside the default judgment. (Id.). Plaintiff explains that his previous pleading opposing Defendant's summary judgment motion and filed on October 6, 2020 was delayed due to his contracting COVID-19 and being quarantined. (Id. at 3-4). The Court liberally construes Plaintiff's pro se motion as seeking an extension of time to respond to Defendant's summary judgment motion filed on March 3, 2020. (Doc. No. 28).

At the outset, no default judgment has been entered against Plaintiff. (See docket). Plaintiff admittedly did not timely oppose Defendant's summary judgment motion. However, Plaintiff did belatedly file a statement of disputed material facts and stated he “objects to any and every aspect” of Defendant's summary judgment on October 6, 2020. (Doc. No. 30). Defendant construed the motion as Plaintiff's opposition and filed a reply and objections to Plaintiff's exhibits attached to his statement. (Doc. Nos. 31, 32).

The Court finds Plaintiff has shown good cause and excusable neglect for untimely filing his opposition and will grant Plaintiffs construed motion for extension of time nunc pro tunc. The Court will consider Plaintiffs pleading (Doc. No. 30) in opposition to Defendant's summary judgment motion, as well as Defendant's reply and objections (Doc. Nos. 31, 32), in ruling on Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 28), which is now ripe for review.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff s motion to remove default judgment (Do. No. 34) construed as a motion for extension of time to file an opposition to Defendant's summary judgment motion is GRANTED nunc pro tunc.

2. The Court deems Plaintiff s opposition to Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 30) timely filed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.