Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-03768/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-03768-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

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

CECIL EUGENE SHAW,

Plaintiff,

v.

RANDY KELLEY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.16-cv-03768-VKD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO STRIKE

Re: Dkt. No. 66

On October 29, 2018, plaintiff Cecil Eugene Shaw moved for summary judgment and 

noticed the motion for a December 4, 2018 hearing. Dkt. No. 59. The Court subsequently granted 

the parties’ joint request to continue the motion hearing to December 11, 2018 due to defense 

counsel’s trial calendar. Dkt. Nos. 61, 63. The briefing deadlines, however, were not altered or 

amended, and defendants did not file a response to Mr. Shaw’s summary judgment motion by the 

November 13, 2018 deadline. Civ. L.R. 7-3(a). Believing that defendants did not intend to 

oppose his motion for summary judgment, Mr. Shaw requested that the Court vacate the

December 11 motion hearing and grant his motion for summary judgment on the papers. Dkt. 

No. 64. On November 29, defendants filed a belated opposition to Mr. Shaw’s motion for 

summary judgment. Dkt. No. 65.

Mr. Shaw now moves for an order striking defendants’ opposition as untimely. Dkt. No. 

66. Defendants maintain that their tardy filing was due to excusable neglect under Rule 6(b) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. They say that in view of the length of Mr. Shaw’s summary 

judgment papers, and because of defendants’ and defense counsel’s conflicting schedules over the 

Thanksgiving holiday, they were unable to timely finalize and file their opposition. Dkt. No. 67.

Case 5:16-cv-03768-VKD Document 69 Filed 12/07/18 Page 1 of 3
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

Rule 6(b) provides that, “on motion made after the time has expired,” the Court may 

extend the time for performing an act “if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B). For purposes of Rule 6(b), “excusable neglect” is judged by the 

standard set out in Pioneer Investment Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership, 507 

U.S. 380 (1993). See Briones v. Riviera Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d 379, 381 (9th Cir. 1997) 

(observing that the Pioneer standard applies to Rule 6(b)). The “determination of whether neglect 

is excusable is an equitable one that depends on at least four factors: (1) the danger of prejudice to 

the opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on the proceedings; (3) the 

reason for the delay; and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith.” Bateman v. U.S. Postal 

Serv., 231 F.3d 1220, 1223-24 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 395). “Although 

inadvertence, ignorance of the rules, or mistakes construing the rules do not usually constitute 

‘excusable’ neglect, it is clear that ‘excusable neglect’ under Rule 6(b) is a somewhat ‘elastic 

concept’ and is not limited strictly to omissions caused by circumstances beyond the control of the 

movant.” Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 392. Courts may, “where appropriate, . . . accept late filings 

caused by inadvertence, mistake, or carelessness, as well as by intervening circumstances beyond 

the party’s control.” Id. at 388.

In the present matter, the Court is skeptical of defendants’ proffered explanation for their 

delay. As noted by Mr. Shaw, if defendants needed more time to file their opposition, prudent 

counsel should have requested an extension before the filing deadline lapsed. Prior to filing their 

opposition, defendants did not ask for an extension and did not even seek leave to file their tardy 

opposition. The record instead suggests that defense counsel erroneously believed that the time 

for filing an opposition was extended when the motion hearing was continued (Dkt. No. 66-1) or

that defendants’ belated filing may have been prompted by Mr. Shaw’s request to vacate the 

December 11 motion hearing. At the same time, however, the length of defendants’ delay (16 

days) and the potential impact on the judicial proceedings is minimal. This matter currently is 

scheduled for a February 27, 2019 final pretrial conference and a three-day bench trial starting 

April 1, 2019. Further, “summary judgment cannot be granted by default even if there is a 

complete failure to respond to the motion . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 advisory committee’s note to 

Case 5:16-cv-03768-VKD Document 69 Filed 12/07/18 Page 2 of 3
3

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

2010 amendment; see also Heinemann v. Satterberg, 731 F.3d 914, 916 (9th Cir. 2013) (same). 

Thus, Mr. Shaw would not be entitled to summary judgment unless the Court concluded that the 

record supported it. Mr. Shaw does not say how he has been prejudiced, if at all, by defendants’ 

delay, and the prejudice to Mr. Shaw of having to defend his claims on the merits is minimal. See 

Bateman, 231 F.3d at 1224-25 (noting that the opposing party “would have lost a quick victory 

and, should it ultimately have lost the summary judgment motion on the merits, would have had to 

reschedule the trial date,” but that such prejudice was insufficient to justify the denial of a request 

to set aside a judgment). Given the potentially dispositive nature of summary judgment, and 

because the Court would be aided by full briefing on the matter, and in view of the fact that the 

case schedule can accommodate a modest continuance, the Court concludes that the interests of 

justice would be best served by accepting defendants’ belated opposition.

Accordingly, Mr. Shaw’s motion to strike is denied. Mr. Shaw may file a summary 

judgment reply by December 13, 2018. The hearing on Mr. Shaw’s motion for summary 

judgment is continued to December 18, 2018, 10:00 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 7, 2018

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:16-cv-03768-VKD Document 69 Filed 12/07/18 Page 3 of 3