Biological Dynamics, Inc. v. Exokeryx, Inc.

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Case No.: 23cv1664 DMS (JLB) BIOLOGICAL DYNAMICS, INC., 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND v. DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN EXOKERYX, INC., EXTENSION OF TIME TO 14 Defendant. ANSWER/RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT 17 This case comes before the Court on Defendant’s ex parte application for an extension of time to answer or respond to the Complaint. Plaintiff opposes the application.

19 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) states, “When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time: (a) with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before the original time or its extension expires[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A). “’Good cause’ is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across procedural and statutory contexts.” Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2010). Requests to extend time made before the applicable deadline has passed “should ‘normally … be granted in the absence of bad faith on the part of the party seeking relief or prejudice to the adverse party.’” Id. (quoting 4B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1165 (3d ed. 2004)).

1 Here, Defendant equates the good cause standard with a due diligence inquiry, ||argues it was diligent in bringing this request to the Court, and that the Court should || therefore extend its time to respond to the Complaint. Plaintiff responds that due diligence 4 not the inquiry here, and that it will be prejudiced if the Court grants the requested || extension.

6 Having considered the parties’ arguments, the Court finds good cause to extend the 7 for Defendant to respond to the Complaint. However, the Court finds the requested ||extension is longer than necessary given the parties lengthy history and their familiarity || with the issues in this case. Accordingly, the Court grants Defendant’s request for an 10 extension of time, but declines to extend the time to May 10, 2024. Instead, Defendant 11 file its response to Plaintiff's Complaint on or before April 23, 2024.

12 IT IS SO ORDERED.

13 ||Dated: April 12, 2024 em Dh 14 an Yn.

15 Hon. Dana M. Sabraw, Chief Judge United States District Court