UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SARA JARA, Case No. 24-cv-02206-RFL

Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND v. MODIFYING BRIEFING SCHEDULE

REGUS MANAGEMENT GROUP LLC, et Re: Dkt. Nos. 28, 33 al., Defendants.

Regus filed a Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 28) on May 29, 2024. Jara’s response was due by June 12, 2024. Without leave of Court or explanation for the delay, Jara filed her Opposition nearly one week later, on June 18, 2024. (Dkt. No. 33.) Under the current briefing schedule, Regus would be left with only one day to craft its reply. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B), “[w]hen an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time . . . on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect.” To assess excusable neglect, courts consider four factors: “(1) the danger of prejudice to the non-moving party, (2) the length of delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, (3) the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant, and (4) whether the moving party’s conduct was in good faith.” Pincay v. Andrews,

(9th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (citing Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship,

(1993)). Regus has not filed a motion seeking to extend the deadline. Accordingly, Regus is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing why she filed her opposition six days after the deadline. In the show cause response, Regus may move for leave to allow the Court to consider her late-filed opposition. Any such response should consider the four factors described above. The show cause response is due by June 26, 2024. Regus’s reply deadline is moved to June 26, 2024. The hearing on the Motion will remain as scheduled, on July 9, 2024, at 10:00 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 20, 2024

RITA F. LIN United States District Judge