Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02410/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02410-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

– 1 – 15cv2410 

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 

MARY CAPPS, individually and on 

behalf of others similarly situated, 

 Plaintiff, 

Case No. 15-cv-2410-BAS(NLS) 

ORDER GRANTING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME FOR 

DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO 

COMPLAINT 

[ECF No. 3] 

 v. 

LAW OFFICES OF PETER W. 

SINGER, et al., 

 Defendants. 

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s filing titled “Notice of Extension of 

Time for Defendants to Respond to the Complaint on or before December 3, 2015.” 

The body of the filing conflicts with the caption in that the body states that the parties 

wish to extend Defendants’ deadline to respond to the complaint to December 30, 

2015.1

 Even though the filing is not fashioned as a motion, it will be interpreted as 

one because extensions of time require an order from the Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

6(b). 

 

1

 Plaintiff’s proposed order contains the same discrepancy as the filing. The caption states the 

December 3, 2015 date while the body twice states the December 30, 2015 date. Because the body 

is considered the substance of any court filing, the Court will presume Plaintiff meant to use the 

December 30, 2015 date for the purposes of this order.

Case 3:15-cv-02410-BAS-NLS Document 6 Filed 11/06/15 Page 1 of 2
 – 2 – 15cv2410 

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 

Rule 6(b) states that “[w]hen an act may or 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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1). Here, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate good cause. 

She merely states that the parties have “agreed to an extension of time.” But Plaintiff 

fails to provide any support for that assertion—Plaintiff’s motion does not contain 

Defendants’ counsel’s signature, and Plaintiff’s counsel does not submit a declaration 

recounting the parties’ purported agreement. 

Though Plaintiff fails to demonstrate good cause, the Court will nonetheless 

extend Defendants’ deadline to respond to the complaint because Plaintiff’s request 

is technically made to her detriment as she is entitled to a response within 21 days of 

serving the complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1). Accordingly, the Court 

GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion; Defendants shall respond to the complaint no later than 

December 30, 2015. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 6, 2015 

 

Case 3:15-cv-02410-BAS-NLS Document 6 Filed 11/06/15 Page 2 of 2