1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THANE CHARMAN, an individual, Case No.: 23-CV-995 JLS (AHG)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 13 v. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT 14 CORE DIGITIAL MARKETING LLC,

D/B/A HIGH END CLIENT, a Ohio LLC; 15 (ECF No. 11) KENT LITTLEJOHN, an individual; 16 MATTHEW BARCUS, an individual, 17 Defendants. 18 19 Presently before the Court is the ex parte Request for Extension to Respond to 20 Complaint (“Req.,” ECF No. 11) filed by Defendants Kent Littlejohn and Mattew Barcus 21 (collectively, “Defendants”). Defendants, acting pro se, seek a 60-day extension to answer 22 Plaintiff Thane Charman’s Amended Complaint (“Am. Compl., ECF No. 6). Plaintiff has 23 not responded to the Request. See Docket. 24 Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint on October 17, 2023. See Am. Compl. The 25 Court issued an amended summons on October 24. See ECF No. 7. Plaintiff then returned 26 an executed summons for each Defendant, showing that all three were served on 27 October 25. See ECF Nos. 8–10. As defendants must typically serve an answer “within 28 21 days after being served with the summons and complaint,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 12(a)(1)(A)(i), Defendants were required to respond by November 15. Defendants filed 2 the instant Request on December 8. See Req. 3 Defendants provide two explanations for their failure to timely respond to the 4 Amended Complaint. Defendants first state that they are unable to afford legal 5 representation because “Core Digital Marketing LLC has experienced significant financial 6 difficulties.” Id. at 1. Defendants next contend that they “had no direct involvement in, 7 nor were aware of, any actions that may have caused distress or inconvenience to” Plaintiff. 8 Id. Given their lack of personal knowledge, and as they recently “release[d] the majority 9 of [their] staff,” Defendants assert that more time is needed to “conduct a thorough review” 10 of Plaintiff’s allegations. Id. 11 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b), the Court may extend a filing deadline 12 for good cause “on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to act because 13 of excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B). “[T]he determination of whether neglect 14 is excusable is an equitable one that depends on at least four factors: (1) the danger of 15 prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on the 16 proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith.” 17 Bateman v. U.S. Postal Serv.,

, 1223–24 (9th Cir. 2000). 18 On balance, the above factors militate towards granting Defendants an extension. 19 Courts have found that failing to timely answer a complaint due to difficulty in obtaining 20 counsel can constitute excusable neglect. See Transpay, Inc. v. TMNPS, Inc., No. CV 05- 21 00590 SPK-LEK,

, at *4 (D. Haw. Apr. 17, 2006). And the Court sees 22 little to suggest that Defendants are acting in bad faith. However, the Court is mindful of 23 the potential impact on Plaintiff and the proceedings that a lengthy delay could pose. As 24 the Request comes over three weeks after their original deadline passed, the Court is 25 disinclined to grant Defendants a further 60 days without additional explanation or input 26 from Plaintiff. 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Request. Defendants SHALL 2 ||SERVE their answer or another responsive pleading within thirty (30) days of the date of 3 || this Order. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: December 14, 2023 tt 6 pen Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28