Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-00726/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-00726-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Morgan Howarth,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Ryan Patterson, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-19-00726-PHX-ESW

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Motion for Extension of Time to File First 

Amended Complaint (First Request)” (Doc. 59). Plaintiff explains that he failed to file his 

First Amended Complaint by the August 20, 2019 deadline because of a calendaring error.

A party who seeks to extend an expired deadline must show excusable neglect. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B) (time may be extended “on motion made after the time has expired 

if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect”). An excusable neglect 

determination “is a decision committed to the discretion of the district court.” In re

Veritas Software Corp. Sec. Litig., 496 F.3d 962, 974 (9th Cir. 2007). “To determine 

whether a party’s failure to meet a deadline constitutes ‘excusable neglect,’ courts must 

apply a four-factor equitable test[ ]” based upon Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick 

Assoc. Ltd., 507 U.S. 380, 113 S.Ct. 1489, 123 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993).” Ahanchian v. Xenon 

Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1261 (9th Cir.2010) (citations omitted); Comm. for Idaho's 

High Desert, Inc. v. Yost, 92 F.3d 814, 825 n.4 (9th Cir.1996) (concluding that the Pioneer

Case 2:19-cv-00726-ESW Document 64 Filed 09/26/19 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

test is applicable to Rule 6(b)). The decision is at bottom an equitable one, taking into 

account all of the relevant circumstances surrounding the party’s omission[,]” including (i) 

the danger of prejudice to the other party, (ii) the length of delay and its potential impact 

on judicial proceedings, (iii) the reason for the delay, and (iv) whether the party acted 

in good faith. Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co., 507 U.S. at 395.

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s late filing is a result of excusable neglect. 

Specifically, there is no danger of prejudice to Defendant, the length of delay is minimal, 

the reason for the delay is not unexcusable, and there is no evidence Plaintiff has acted in 

bad faith. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s “Motion for Extension of Time to File First 

Amended Complaint (First Request)” (Doc. 59). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file his First Amended Complaint

no later than September 30, 2019.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall submit a joint motion to modify 

the scheduling order no later than October 4, 2019.

Dated this 26th day of September, 2019.

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:19-cv-00726-ESW Document 64 Filed 09/26/19 Page 2 of 2