Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02010/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02010-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1441nr Notice of Removal

---

1 

3:18-cv-2010-L-AGS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

APARNA VASHISHT-ROTA, an 

individual, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

HOWELL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, 

LLC, a Utah limited liability company; 

SHRIS HOWELL, an individual; and 

DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, 

Defendants.

 Case No.: 3:18-cv-2010-L-AGS 

ORDER GRANTING OPPOSED 

DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE 

MOTION [Doc. 16] 

Currently pending before the Court is defendants’ ex parte motion for leave to 

opposition to plaintiff’s motion to remand [ECF No. 16]. On September 14, 2018, Plaintiff 

filed a motion for remand, which had a corresponding hearing date of October 15, 2018. 

See ECF No. 7. According to Civil Local Rule 7.1(e)(2), Defendants was required to file 

an opposition or statement of non-opposition by October 1, 2018. However, Defendants 

failed to do so, claiming that the delay in filing in filing an opposition was a result of a 

calendaring error. See ECF No. 16. 

Under Rule 60(b), a court “may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final 

judgment, order, or proceeding” due to “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable 

Case 3:18-cv-02010-L-AGS Document 19 Filed 10/15/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
 2 

3:18-cv-2010-L-AGS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

neglect.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). “To determine whether a party’s failure to meet a deadline 

constitutes ‘excusable neglect,’ courts must apply a four-factor equitable test, examining: 

(1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential 

impact on the proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the movant acted 

in good faith.” Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1261 (9th Cir. 2010). 

These equitable factors weigh in favor of a finding of excusable neglect. First, 

Plaintiff would not be prejudiced as the Court could amend the briefing schedule in order 

to allow Plaintiff full opportunity to file a reply brief. Second, the four-day delay does not 

significantly impact the early stages of this litigation and the Court’s consideration of this 

motion in light of the also pending motion to dismiss filed by Defendants. Third, courts 

have found that a calendaring error leading to a brief delay in filing is excusable neglect. 

See Herbert v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2009 WL 88352, at *3-4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 

2009). Last, the Defendants contacted Plaintiff immediately upon learning of the 

calendaring error. ECF No. 16-2 at 3-4. As such, the Court finds that excusable neglect 

resulted from Defendants’ calendaring error. 

For the above reasons, the Court will accept Defendants attachment to its ex parte 

application [ECF No. 16-1] as Defendants’ opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to remand. 

Accordingly, the Court continues the hearing date corresponding with Plaintiff’s motion to 

remand until October 29, 2018. Plaintiff shall file a reply brief no later than October 22, 

2018. No oral argument shall be held unless ordered by the Court and the matter shall be 

taken under submission without further court order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 15, 2018 

Case 3:18-cv-02010-L-AGS Document 19 Filed 10/15/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2