Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00967/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00967-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1125(a) False representation of goods sold in interstate commerce

---

– 1 – 17-cv-0967 DMS (NLS)

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

WASTE MANAGEMENT 

COMPLIANCE, INC.,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 17-cv-0967 DSM (NLS)

ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE 

APPLICATION FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT

v.

STERICYCLE, INC., 

STERICYCLE SPECIALTY 

WASTE SOLUTIONS, INC., AND 

DOES 1-20,

Defendants.

Pending before the Court is Defendants Stericycle, Inc. and Stericycle 

Specialty Waste Solutions, Inc.’s Ex Parte Application for Extension of Time to

Respond to the Complaint. Plaintiff Waste Management Compliance, Inc. filed an

opposition to the Application. For the reasons explained below, the Court grants

Defendants’ requested relief.

I.

BACKGROUND

On May 10, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging the following eight

causes of action: (1) false advertising under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), (2) false advertising 

Case 3:17-cv-00967-DMS-NLS Document 7 Filed 06/06/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
– 2 – 17-cv-0967 DMS (NLS)

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

under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq., (3) unfair competition under Cal. Bus. 

& Prof. Code § 17200 et seq., (4) trade libel, (5) intentional interference with 

contractual relations, (6) intentional interference with prospective economic 

advantage, (7) negligent interference with contractual relations, and (8) negligent 

interference with prospective economic advantage. On May 11, 2017, Plaintiff 

served Defendants with the Complaint and summons. (Declaration of Jennifer Barry

(“Barry Decl.”) ¶ 3.) Subsequently, Defendants retained counsel in the Southern

District of California on May 23, 2017. (Id. ¶ 6.) Accordingly, counsel had nine

days to respond to the Complaint. On May 24 and 25, 2017, Defendants’ counsel

reached out to Plaintiff’s counsel, requesting counsel to stipulate to an extension of 

time to file their responsive pleading. (Id. ¶¶ 7–8, Ex. 1.) Plaintiff’s counsel refused 

the request, prompting Defendants to file the present Application on May 26, 2017. 

(Id. ¶¶ 9–10, Ex. 1.) Plaintiff filed an Opposition on May 30, 2017.

II.

DISCUSSION

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1), “the court may, for good 

cause, extend the time: (A) with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a 

request is made, before the original time or its extension expires.” The decision to 

grant an extension lies within the district court’s discretion. Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife 

Fed’n, 497 U.S. 871, 896–97 (1990). “This rule, like all the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, ‘[is] to be liberally construed to effectuate the general purpose of seeing 

that cases are tried on the merits.’” Ahnachian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 

1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 459 (9th Cir. 

1983). “The good cause standard primarily considers the party’s diligence.... The 

focus of the inquiry is on the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification; if 

that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.” Stiller v. Costco Wholesale 

Corp., No. 3:09-CV-2473-GPC-BGS, 2013 WL 5417178, at *3 (S.D. Cal., Sept. 26, 

2013) (quoting Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 

Case 3:17-cv-00967-DMS-NLS Document 7 Filed 06/06/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
– 3 – 17-cv-0967 DMS (NLS)

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

1992)). 

Defendants have a principal place of business in Illinois. After being served, 

Defendants spent 12 days searching for counsel in the Southern District of 

California. Prior to the response deadline, Defendants’ counsel requested Plaintiff’s 

counsel to stipulate to an extension of time for Defendants to respond to the 

Complaint. When Plaintiff’s counsel refused, Defendants promptly filed the present 

Application before expiration of the time to respond to the Complaint. Under Rule 

6(b)(1)(A), good cause exists when a party shows, as here, they acted diligently and 

in good faith when seeking an extension of time to respond. Defendants point out 

they were retained nine days before their response was due and they needed 

additional time to analyze the Complaint, prepare a response, and meet and confer 

with counsel under the Court’s chamber’s rules. (See App at 2.)

Plaintiff contends that granting the Application will result in severe prejudice 

because “the nature of [its] suit requires immediate action due to [Defendants’] 

ongoing wrongful acts of disparaging [Plaintiff’s] product[.]” (Opp’n to App. at 2.) 

Plaintiff, however, fails to present any evidence as to why an extension of time 

would cause it to suffer harm, let alone harm that cannot be addressed by money 

damages or injunctive relief in the ordinary course of litigation. Accordingly, 

Defendants’ Application is granted, as Defendants have acted diligently and shown 

good cause.

III.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Ex Parte Application for Extension of Time is 

granted. Defendants’ deadline to respond to the Complaint is hereby extended to 

June 27, 2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:17-cv-00967-DMS-NLS Document 7 Filed 06/06/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
– 4 – 17-cv-0967 DMS (NLS)

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

Dated: June 6, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-00967-DMS-NLS Document 7 Filed 06/06/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4