Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02475/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02475-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

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

09cv2475

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT GERTH et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

AMERICAN MORTGAGE EXPRESS

FINANCIAL, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 09cv2475-L(RBB)

ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION

TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND

TO THE FIRST AMENDED

COMPLAINT

On July 9, 2010 Plaintiffs and Defendant First American Title Insurance Company (“First

American”) filed a Joint Motion to Extend Time for Defendant First American Title Insurance

Company to Respond to First Amended Complaint. First American’s response was due on May

26, 2010; accordingly the showing required for an extension is excusable neglect pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B). See Pioneer Investment Services Company v.

Brunswick Associates, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993); Kyle v. Campbell Soup Co., 38 F.3d 928 (9th

/ / / / /

/ / / / / 

/ / / / /

/ / / / /

/ / / / /

/ / / / /

Case 3:09-cv-02475-L-BGS Document 46 Filed 07/12/10 Page 1 of 2
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

2 09cv2475

Cir. 1994); Pincay v. Andrews, 389 F.3d 853, 855 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc). Because the parties

do not address the applicable standard, their joint motion is DENIED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 12, 2010

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. RUBEN B. BROOKS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:09-cv-02475-L-BGS Document 46 Filed 07/12/10 Page 2 of 2