1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ELIZABETH HICKS, an Individual on Case No.: 22-CV-2038 JLS (DDL) behalf of herself and all others similarly 12 situated and the general public, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 13 MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO Plaintiff, RESPOND TO COMPLAINT 14 v. 15 (ECF No. 27) GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES, INC., 16 a Corporation with Headquarters in California; and DOES 1–100, inclusive, 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 21 22 23 Presently before the Court is Defendant Grimmway Enterprises, Inc.’s Motion to 24 Extend Time to Respond to Complaint (“Mot.,” ECF No. 27). Defendant seeks to extend 25 the time by which it must answer Plaintiff Elizabeth Hick’s First Amended Complaint 26 (“FAC,” ECF No. 1-8) from June 26, 2023, to July 5, 2023. Memorandum of Points and 27 Authorities in Support of Defendant Grimmway Enterprises, Inc.’s Motion to Extend Time 28 to Respond to Complaint (“Mem.,” ECF No. 27-1) at 2. 1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1) allows courts, for good cause, to extend the 2 time in which an act must be completed “with or without motion or notice if the court acts, 3 or if a request is made, before the original time or its extension expires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 6(b)(1)(A). Otherwise, such an extension may be granted “on motion made after the time 5 has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 6(b)(1)(B). Additionally, this District’s Civil Local Rules provide that “[e]xtensions of 7 time for answering, or moving to dismiss a complaint will only be secured by obtaining the 8 approval of a judicial officer, who will base the decision on a showing of good cause.” 9 S.D. Cal. CivLR 12.1. 10 Here, on June 5, 2023, the Court denied Defendant’s Motion to Strike the First, 11 Second, and Third Causes of Action in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, and For 12 Attorneys’ Fees, Pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. P. § 425.16. See ECF No. 26. As Defendant 13 notes, however, “[t]he Order on Grimmway’s Motion to Strike did not specifically identify 14 a date by which Grimmway was to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint.” Mem. 15 at 2. 16 The Court is unaware of any rule establishing the deadline by which a defendant 17 must file a responsive pleading following the denial of a motion filed pursuant to California 18 Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16, otherwise known as an “anti-SLAPP” motion. The 19 Parties appear to be under the impression that a 21-day deadline applies to such a situation 20 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 81. See ECF No. 27-3 at 1. That rule, however, 21 establishes deadlines for filing a responsive pleading when the defendant did not answer 22 before removal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(c). Rule 81 says nothing about when a defendant 23 must file a responsive pleading following the denial of an anti-SLAPP motion. See id. 24 Generally, there is a 14-day deadline to file a responsive pleading after the denial of 25 a Rule 12 motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. (a)(4)(A). But it is unclear whether an anti-SLAPP 26 motion qualifies as, or is otherwise equivalent to, a Rule 12 motion. Unlike a standard 27 Rule 12(f) motion to strike and many other Rule 12 motions, denials of anti-SLAPP 28 motions are “immediately appealable pursuant to the collateral order doctrine,” DC Comics 1 || v. Pac. Pictures Corp.,

(9th Cir. 2013), and a defendant who prevails 2 an anti-SLAPP motion “shall be entitled to recover that defendant’s attorney’s fees and 3 || costs,”

(c)(1). Moreover, as the Court noted in its Order 4 || Denying Defendant’s Motion to Strike, “when an anti-SLAPP motion to strike challenges 5 || only the legal sufficiency of a claim, a district court should apply the Federal Rule of Civil 6 || Procedure 12(b)(6) standard and consider whether a claim is properly stated,” but “when 7 anti-SLAPP motion to strike challenges the factual sufficiency of a claim, then the 8 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 standard will apply.” Planned Parenthood Fed’n of 9 ||Am., Inc. v. Ctr. for Med. Progress,

(9th Cir. 2018), concurrence 10 || amended,

(9th Cir. 2018). 11 Defendant filed the instant Motion on June 26, 2023, which was more than 14 days 12 || but less than 21 days after the Court’s Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Strike. See 13 ||Mot. Accordingly, it is unclear whether a good cause standard or an excusable neglect 14 || standard applies. Under either standard, however, the Court finds that Defendant’s Motion 15 ||to Extend Time to Respond to Complaint should be granted. Simply put, if the Court 16 |}cannot determine when the responsive pleading was due, Defendant should not be faulted 17 || for any delay in requesting additional time to file a responsive pleading. 18 Consequently, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Extend Time to Respond 19 Complaint. Defendant must file its response to Plaintiff's FAC on or before July 5, 20 ||2023. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 llDated: June 28, 2023 jae Lb monaitenus- 23 on. Janis L. Sammartino A United States District Judge 25 26 27 28