Bessmertnyy v. Kirk

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PETR K. BESSMERTNYY, Case No.: 3:21-cv-779-L-LL 10 Petitioner, v. ORDER ON EX PARTE MOTION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, (ECF 5) 13 Respondent.

15 Pending before the Court is an ex parte motion to continue the briefing schedule on the habeas petition. (ECF 5). Respondent’s counsel miscalendared the response deadline. (ECF 5-1). The requested extension will not result in undue prejudice. The delay is short and will not have a significant impact on the case. There is also nothing to suggest Respondent acted in bad faith. The Court therefore GRANTS the ex parte motion. See Laurino v. Syringa Gen. Hosp., 279 F.3d 750, 753 (9th Cir. 2002); Hon. M.

21 James Lorenz Standing Order for Civil Cases (“the court will rule upon simple administrative requests without requiring a response from the opposing party. If a party intends to oppose, the party must immediately contact chambers and request an opportunity to file an opposition.”)

25 /// /// /// /// 1 Respondent has until July 9, 2021 to file and serve a response, if any, which shall ||include all relevant documents. Petitioner has until August 9, 2021 to file and serve a || traverse, if any. The Court will decide the matter on the papers submitted without oral ||argument. See Civ. L. R. 7.1.

5 IT IS SO ORDERED.

6 ||Dated: June 10, 2021 : 1 fee fp g H . James Lorenz, 9 United States District Judge