Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01641/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01641-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Trial in this matter is set for August 4, 2015, and the pre-trial conference is set for June 3, 

2015. On March 2, 2015, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. Hearing on this 

motion was set for April 6, 2015. On March 31, 2015, the Court took the motion under 

submission; Plaintiff had not filed an opposition. 

On April 9, 2015, Plaintiff‟s counsel filed an ex parte application to extend time to file an 

opposition. See Doc. No. 31. Plaintiff‟s application indicates that Plaintiff‟s counsel is effectively

operating as a solo practitioner, he was experiencing family and health related issues around the 

time that Defendant‟s motion was filed, his legal assistant (who is the only other person in the 

office) was sick for several days near the beginning of March, his legal assistant did not notice that 

Defendant had filed the motion, and counsel relies on his legal assistant to print and keep track of 

motions filed electronically. See id. Plaintiff‟s counsel argues that there is no harm to Defendant, 

there only is a minimal delay that will not affect proceedings because trial is set for August 2015, 

the reason for the delay was an administrative error, and that he is acting in good faith. See id.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1) provides, “When an act may or must be done 

within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time . . . on motion made after 

TREVOR WEEKS,

Plaintiff

v.

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO.,

Defendant

CASE NO. 1:13-CV-1641 AWI JLT 

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE 

APPLICATION TO EXTEND TIME

(Doc. No. 31)

Case 1:13-cv-01641-AWI-JLT Document 32 Filed 04/10/15 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

the time has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 

6(b)(1)(B). “„Good cause‟ is a non-rigorous standard,” and Rule 6(b)(1) is “liberally construed to 

effectuate the general purposes of seeing that cases are tried on the merits.” Ahanchian v. Xenon 

Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2010). To determine whether there is “excusable 

neglect,” courts consider: (1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing party, (2) the length of the 

delay, (3) the reason for the delay, and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith. Warkentin v. 

Federated Life Ins. Co., 594 Fed. Appx. 900 (9th Cir. 2014). 

Here, the Court is satisfied that Plaintiff has demonstrated excusable neglect and good 

cause. The Court sees no danger of prejudicing Defendant since only an opposition to a fully 

briefed summary judgment motion is at issue. There will be some delay in proceedings, but the 

delay will be only a matter of several weeks, and it appears (at this point at least) that the trial and 

pre-trial conference dates will remain in place. The reason for the delay is due to administrative 

error, and no bad faith is apparent. Given the non-rigorous standards involved for “good cause,” 

the purposes of Rule 6(b)(1), and the declaration of Plaintiff‟s counsel, the Court will grant 

Plaintiff‟s motion and extend the time to file an opposition.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff‟s ex parte application for additional time (Doc. No. 31) is GRANTED; 

2. Plaintiff may file an opposition to Defendant‟s motion for summary judgment on or by 

April 20, 2015; and

3. Defendant may file a reply to Plaintiff‟s opposition on or by April 27, 2015.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 10, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

 

1

If, after having reviewed the submissions of the parties, the Court determines that a hearing on Defendant‟s motion 

would be beneficial, the Court will set a hearing date at that time. Otherwise, the Court will decide the matter on the 

papers after receiving Defendant‟s reply. See Local Rule 230.

Case 1:13-cv-01641-AWI-JLT Document 32 Filed 04/10/15 Page 2 of 2