Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-00726/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-00726-6/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 

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s “Motion to Strike Defendants’ Untimely and 

Improper Replies in Support of Motion to Set Aside Entry of Default” (Doc. 102). Plaintiff 

is correct that Defendant Patterson Remodeling, LLC filed its Reply (Doc. 100) in support 

of its Motion to Set Aside an Entry of Default (Doc. 91) one day late under the current 

version of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6. However, after reviewing Plaintiff’s 

Response (Doc. 93) opposing the setting aside of the default, the Court found that it was in 

the interests of justice to review Defendant Patterson Remodeling, LLC’s replies to the 

arguments made in Plaintiff’s Response. The Court finds no prejudice to Plaintiff by the 

one-day late Reply (Doc. 100). Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (Doc. 102) will be denied as to 

Defendant Patterson Remodeling, LLC’s Reply (Doc. 100). See United States v. Toilolo, 

No. CR 11-00506 LEK, 2013 WL 12212909, at *2 (D. Haw. Nov. 18, 2013) (“While the 

Court is not without annoyance at late filings, it cannot conclude that Defendants were 

unduly prejudiced by the one-day late filing, nor can it conclude that justice would be 

Case 2:19-cv-00726-ESW Document 110 Filed 02/24/20 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

served by striking the Government’s Motion.”); Rogers v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 

2012 WL 2190900, at *6 (W.D. Wash. June 13, 2012) (denying motion to strike oneday late summary judgment opposition because its untimely filing did not prejudice 

opposing party). 

The Court, however, does find good cause to strike the Reply filed by Defendants

Ryan Patterson and Patterson Homes, LLC as those Defendants did not join Defendant 

Patterson Remodeling, LLC’s Motion to Set Aside an Entry of Default (Doc. 91). 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s “Motion to Strike Defendants’ Untimely and 

Improper Replies in Support of Motion to Set Aside Entry of Default” (Doc. 102) as to 

Defendant Patterson Remodeling, LLC’s Reply (Doc. 100). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s “Motion to Strike Defendants’ 

Untimely and Improper Replies in Support of Motion to Set Aside Entry of Default” (Doc. 

102) as to Defendants Ryan Patterson and Patterson Homes, LLC’s Reply (Doc. 101).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED striking Defendants Ryan Patterson and Patterson 

Homes, LLC’s Reply (Doc. 101).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall comply with the current version 

of the Federal and Local Rules of Civil Procedure.

1

 

Dated this 21st day of February, 2020.

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge

1 The Court’s August 8, 2019 Order (Doc. 57) inadvertently referenced the prior 

version of Rule 6(d), which allowed three days to be added to the time in which a party 

must act within a specified time after service if service was effected by electronic means. 

Rule 6(d) no longer provides for an additional three days to be added to a deadline if service 

was effected by electronic means. Although Defendants Ryan Patterson and Patterson 

Homes, LLC state in their February 12, 2020 filing (Doc. 104 at 2) that they “have been 

guided” by the prior Order (Doc. 57), the Court notes that Defendants Ryan Patterson and 

Patterson Homes, LLC did not dispute Plaintiff’s assertion that they filed their Reply in 

support of their Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 82) approximately a week late under the current 

version of Rule 6(d). (Docs. 84, 85). On November 13, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s 

Motion to Strike (Doc. 84) their untimely Reply (Doc. 82) and denied Defendants’ Motion 

for an Extension of Time (Doc. 85). (Doc. 89).

Case 2:19-cv-00726-ESW Document 110 Filed 02/24/20 Page 2 of 2