Case Name: CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PENTA HOSPITALITY, LLC and Tarun S. Patel, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-11-21
Citations: 670 F. App'x 921
Docket Number: No. 14-17354
Parties: CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PENTA HOSPITALITY, LLC and Tarun S. Patel, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 670
Pages: 921–922

Head Matter:
CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PENTA HOSPITALITY, LLC and Tarun S. Patel, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-17354
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted November 14, 2016 San Francisco, California
Filed November 21, 2016
Timothy Carl Aires, Aires Law Group, Irvine, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Tarun S. Patel, Pro Se, San Jose, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
The district court's order denying the plaintiff an extension of time within which to file post-judgment motions and closing the case file is vacated.
The district court did not explain why it was strictly enforcing the October 30, 2014, filing deadline, and we cannot infer any reasons from the record to support such strict enforcement. See Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258 (9th Cir. 2010) (denial of a time extension is an abuse of discretion if it is "without support in inferences that may be drawn from the record"). The district court originally set the October 30 deadline for "[a]ll motions for assigning or charging orders" in light of a post-judgment examination scheduled for October 27. The plaintiff asserts that'it could not file such motions without obtaining information from the defendant, Tarun Patel, and his business entity, Pracrea Inc., at the post-judgment examination, which the district court had ordered Patel and Pracrea Inc. to attend. After they failed to attend, it was apparent that the examination would need to be rescheduled and that the filing deadline would therefore need to be reset to a later date following the rescheduled examination. Thus, we cannot infer any plausible reason for insisting on the October 30 deadline or for severely enforcing it against an otherwise diligent judgment creditor by closing the case file.
Motions for time extensions should be granted when there is good cause, construed broadly, and no showing of bad faith or prejudice to the nonmoving party. Id. at 1259. Here, the district court denied the plaintiffs request for a time extension solely for lack of good cause. However, the district court abused its discretion by summarily rejecting the plaintiffs explanation that it was moving for an extension due to the fact that Patel and Pracrea Inc. had failed to appear at the scheduled examination. There is no indication that the plaintiffs request was in bad faith, and an extension would not unduly prejudice the absent defendant because it was his own failure to appear at the examination that gave rise to the need to reschedule the examination and reset the deadline in the first place.
VACATED and REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.