Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-00640/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-00640-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Fair Credit Reporting 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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JAMES A. HUTCHINS,

Plaintiff,

v.

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, 

LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-00640-BLF 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 

POSTPONE ENE AND TO EXTEND 

DEADLINE TO COMPLETE ENE; AND 

SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND 

HEARING DATE RE PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 

FILED AUGUST 6, 2015

The Court has received Defendants’ Administrative Motion to Postpone ENE and to 

Extend Deadline to Complete ENE, which was filed on August 13, 2015 and served by mail on 

Plaintiff on the same date. The motion is brought under Civil Local Rule 7-11, which provides 

that any opposition must be filed no later than four days after the administrative motion is filed. 

See Civ. L.R. 7-11(b). That deadline is extended by three days in this case because Defendants 

served Plaintiff, who is pro se, by mail. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). Plaintiff’s time for response to 

Defendants’ administrative motion therefore does not expire until August 20, 2015. Defendants 

therefore appear to be requesting that this Court relieve them of their obligation to proceed with 

the scheduled ENE without affording Plaintiff an opportunity to respond to Defendants’ request. 

Defendants’ motion also violates this Court’s ADR Local Rules, which require that “[r]equests for 

extension of the deadline for conducting an ENE session must be made no later than 14 days 

before the session is to be held.” ADR L.R. 5-5(a). 

Defendants assert that they were unable to file their administrative motion earlier because 

the motion was triggered by Plaintiff’s filing of a motion for leave to amend his complaint. A 

Case 5:15-cv-00640-BLF Document 33 Filed 08/17/15 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

copy of that motion was emailed to Defendants’ counsel on the evening of August 4, 2015, filed 

with the Court on August 6, 2015, and docketed on August 12, 2015. The Court is not persuaded 

that the filing of Plaintiff’s motion alters the issues in this case so significantly as to justify the 

untimely filing of Defendants’ administrative motion. Defendants’ administrative motion is 

DENIED. The parties are ORDERED to proceed with the ENE on August 18, 2015 as scheduled 

and to engage in a good faith discussion with the evaluator.

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is hereby SET FOR HEARING on December 3, 

2015, at 9:00 a.m. Any opposition shall be filed on or before August 31, 2015. Any reply shall be 

filed on or before September 11, 2015. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 17, 2015

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-00640-BLF Document 33 Filed 08/17/15 Page 2 of 2