Martinez v. AJM Packaging Corporation

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAMANTHA MARTINEZ, an individual, Case No. 24-cv-0268-BAS-BGS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PARTIES’ 13 v. JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE ANSWER (ECF No. 9) AJM PACKAGING CORPORATION, a business entity, form unknown; ARMANDO MEDINA, an individual; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, 17 Defendants.

19 Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to Extend Defendant Armando Medina’s Deadline to Respond to Complaint (“Joint Motion”). (ECF No. 9.) The parties seek the extension due to Defendant Medina’s difficulties in obtaining appropriate counsel in time to respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint. (Id. ¶ 7.)

23 Upon considering the parties’ Joint Motion and the relevant four-factor test, the Court finds Medina failed to timely act due to excusable neglect. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b); Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1261 (9th Cir. 2010) (enumerating a four-factor equitable test for determining excusable neglect); see also Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd., 507 U.S. 380, 392 (1993) (“[I]t is clear that ‘excusable neglect’ under Rule 6(b) is a somewhat ‘elastic concept’ and is not limited strictly to || omissions caused by circumstances beyond the control of the movant.”). Thus, the Court ||retroactively extends the time period for Medina to file his response to the Complaint to March 18, 2024.

4 IT IS SO ORDERED.

5 A , || DATED: March 25, 2024 Ypilag (Lyohaa 6 7 United States District Judge 4.