Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01794/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01794-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

First Ascent Ventures, Inc., 

Plaintiff/counter-defendant, 

vs.

DLC Dermacare, LLC, 

Defendant/counter-claimant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-1794-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs'/Counterdefendants' Motion for Extension To

File Response to DLC Dermacare, LLC's Application for Attorneys' Fees (Doc. # 104). The

deadline for responding to Dermacare's attorneys' fees motion has passed.

Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants missed the deadline because of a failure of their counsels'

electronic calendaring system. Counsel for Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants called Dermacare's

counsel to ask for an agreed extension. After consulting with the client, Dermacare's counsel

refused.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b), the Court can grant the requested extension even

though the filing deadline has passed if the failure to file resulted from excusable neglect. In

making a determination of excusable neglect, the Court considers: the danger of prejudice

to the opposing party, "the length of the delay, and its potential impact on judicial

proceedings, the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control

Case 2:06-cv-01794-JAT Document 105 Filed 01/23/07 Page 1 of 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

1

The analysis set out in Pioneer Inv. Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd.

Partnership, 507 U.S. 380 (1993) applies to determinations of "excusable neglect" under

Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). See Committee for Idaho's High Desert, Inc. v. Yost, 92 F.3d 814, 825

n.4 (9th Cir. 1996)

- 2 -

of the movant, and whether the movant acted in good faith." Pioneer Inv. Services Co. v.

Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993).1

The Court finds that these factors weight in favor of granting the extension of time.

Dermacare will not be prejudiced by allowing Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants to file a response;

the delay is not long; Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants have provided adequate reason for the

delay - calendaring system glitch; granting the extension will not disturb future judicial

proceedings in the case; and Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants have not acted in bad faith.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED GRANTING Plaintiffs'/Counterdefendants' Motion for

Extension To File Response to DLC Dermacare, LLC's Application for Attorneys' Fees (Doc.

# 104).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants shall have until

January 30, 2007 to file their Response.

DATED this 22nd day of January, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01794-JAT Document 105 Filed 01/23/07 Page 2 of 2