United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINES
L. ROBART UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the court is pro se Plaintiff Jeannine Tater's
response to the court's April 3, 2019, order to show
cause, which the court liberally construes as a motion for an
extension of time pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
6(b)(1). (Mot. (Dkt. # 22); 4/19/19 Order (Dkt. # 23) at 3;
see also 4/3/19 Order (Dkt. # 17).) Defendants Oanda
Corporation and Oanda (Canada) Corporation ULC (collectively
“Oanda”) filed a response. (Resp. (Dkt. # 24).)
The court has considered the motion, the parties'
submissions concerning the motion, the relevant portions of
the record, and the applicable // law. Being fully advised,
the court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Ms. Tater's
motion as described below.
court issued its April 3, 2019, show cause order because the
parties failed to file a joint status report on March 27,
2019, as required by the court's February 20, 2019,
scheduling order. (See 4/19/19 Order at 1 (citing
4/3/19 Order at 1 and 2/20/19 Order (Dkt. # 14) at 1).) In
response to the show cause order, Ms. Tater represented that
she asked Oanda to agree to a three-month extension for all
case deadlines-both the court's deadlines outlined in its
February 20, 2019, order, as well as the deadlines for
responding to Oanda's pending motion to dismiss.
(See Mot. at 1; see also MTD (Dkt. # 10).)
Oanda provided Ms. Tater with a stipulated motion to extend
the deadlines provided in the February 20, 2019, order by
almost three months. (See Collins Decl. (Dkt. # 20),
¶ 2, Ex. A (“Prop. Stip. Mot.”) at 7.)
Further, Oanda agreed to extend the motion to dismiss
response date by seven weeks. (See Notice (Dkt. #
16) at 2.)
motion, Ms. Tater asserts that she needs an extension of all
deadlines until “after the July 4th holidays” due
to medical complications related to a recent surgery. (Mot.
at 2-3.) In response, Oanda explains that it “do[es]
not object” to Ms. Tater's request for an extension
of time. (Resp. at 3.) Oanda suggests, however, that
“June 7, 2019, is a more reasonable date to continue
the Motion to Dismiss” and that the deadlines provided
in the February 20, 2019, order “should be continued
until after the Court's decision on the Motion to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1), when an act must be
done within a specified time, the court may extend the time
for good cause if the request for an extension is made before
the original time or its extension expires. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A). If the motion is made after the
deadline has expired, the moving party must show that he or
she “failed to act because of excusable neglect.”
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B).
Tater's response to the motion to dismiss was due on
April 29, 2019. (See Notice at 2 (re-noting
Oanda's motion to dismiss to May 3, 2019)); see
also Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(d)(3) (“Any
opposition papers shall be filed and served not later than
the Monday before the noting date.”) Because Ms. Tater
requested an extension of time prior to the April 29, 2019,
deadline, the court considers this request under Rule
6(b)(1)(A)'s “good cause” standard.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A).
cause' is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed
broadly across procedural and statutory contexts.”
Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253,
1259 (9th Cir. 2010). Moreover, Rule 6(b)(1) is
“liberally construed to effectuate the general purpose
of seeing that cases are tried on their merits.”
Id. at 1258-59 (citations omitted). As a result,
requests for extensions of time that are determined under the
good cause standard should “normally . . . be granted
in the absence of bad faith on the part of the party seeking
relief or prejudice to the adverse party.” Id.
at 1259 (citing 4B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R.
Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1165
(3d ed. 2004)).
the court finds that Ms. Tater has demonstrated good cause
for an extension of time to file her motion to dismiss
response. Ms. Tater represents that she had “major
surgery on March 6, 2019.” (Mot. at 1.) Ms. Tater
experienced complications from this surgery, necessitating a
10-day antibiotics regimen. (Id. at 2.) Moreover,
Ms. Tater has had numerous follow-up appointments with her
surgeon to address, among other things, “abnormalities
diagnosed” by other doctors. (Id.) The court
does not find that Ms. Tater has acted in “bad
faith” in requesting the extension. See
Ahanchian, 624 F.3d at 1259.
court, however, concludes that Ms. Tater has not shown good
cause to re-note the motion to dismiss until after July 4,
2019. The motion was originally filed on February 8, 2019
(see MTD), which means that Ms. Tater's response
was due on March 4, 2019, see Local Rules W.D. Wash.
LCR 7(d)(3). To accommodate Ms. Tater, Oanda voluntarily
re-noted its motion to May 3, 2019 (see Notice at
2), which means that Ms. Tater's response was due on
April 29, 2019, see Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR
7(d)(3). Ms. Tater has therefore already received a
substantial extension of time to file her motion to dismiss
response. Considering these facts, the court finds good cause
to EXTEND Ms. Tater's motion to dismiss response deadline
until June 10, 2019. Likewise, the court DIRECTS the Clerk to
re-note Oanda's motion to dismiss to June 14, 2019.
the court analyzes Ms. Tater's request to alter the
deadlines from the court's February 20, 2019, order under
the Rule 6(b)(1)(B) “excusable neglect” standard
because those deadlines expired before her request.
(See 2/20/19 Order at 1; Mot. at 3); Fed.R.Civ.P.
6(b)(1)(B). To show excusable neglect, a party must show
“good faith” and a “reasonable basis”
for not complying with a deadline. Silber v. Mabon,
18 F.3d 1449, 1455 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing In re Four
Seasons Sec. Laws Litig., 493 F.2d 1288, 1290 (10th Cir.
Tater represents that she called the court in early March
2019 to discuss these deadlines. (Mot. at 1.) Ms. Tater then
spoke with Oanda's counsel about altering the deadlines.
(Id. at 2.) From the conversation with Oanda's
counsel, Ms. Tater was left with the impression that she
could “ignore” the deadlines from the February
20, 2019, order because there was a pending motion to dismiss
and that “the pre-trial schedule is only a guide for
attorneys and did not need court approval to change.”
(Id.) It appears that, on these mistaken beliefs,
Ms. Tater did not sign Oanda's proposed stipulated motion
to alter the deadlines. (See id.; see also
Prop. Stip. Mot.)
Ms. Tater's pro se status, the court concludes
that she acted in good faith and with a reasonable basis for
not complying with the deadlines from the February 20, 2019,
order. Silber, 18 F.3d at 1455. Ms. Tater took steps
to comply with the court's deadlines, or at least alter
the deadlines before they expired, when she reached out to
the court and opposing counsel. (See Mot. at 1-2.)
From her conversation with opposing counsel, Ms. Tater
believed that she did not need to submit materials to the
court to alter the deadlines. (See Id. at 2.) Ms.
Tater was incorrect, but she exhibited excusable neglect in
failing to comply with the deadlines from the court's
February 20, 2019, order.
the court EXTENDS the scheduling deadlines as follows: (1)
the deadline for the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f)
conference is now June 10, 2019; (2) the deadline for the
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) initial disclosures
is now June 24, 2019; (3) the deadline for filing a combined
joint status report and discovery plan is now July 1, 2019.
The court advises the parties that these dates are deadlines-
the parties may complete these obligations at any time before
these respective deadlines pass. The court also advises the
parties that the court will not schedule a trial date until
it receives the parties' joint status report and
discovery plan. The court is currently scheduling trials in
foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS in part and DENIES in
part Ms. ...