Jara v. Regus Management Group LLC
- Lin
- 3:24-cv-02206
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Jara v. Regus Management Group LLC, Judge Lin ordered a show-cause response about a late opposition and moved Regus’s reply deadline.
Jara and Regus Management Group LLC were affected by the order’s briefing deadlines. The order required a written show-cause response and moved Regus’s reply deadline to June 26, 2024, while keeping the motion-to-dismiss hearing on July 9, 2024.
What happened
In Jara v. Regus Management Group LLC, Regus filed a motion to dismiss, and Jara filed her opposition six days after the deadline. The late filing left Regus only one day to prepare its reply under the existing schedule.
The court ordered a written response explaining the late filing and said the response could request permission for the court to consider the late opposition. The order states that Regus was to provide this response, although it also says that Jara filed the opposition and refers to the filing party as “she.”
Judge Rita F. Lin moved Regus’s reply deadline to June 26, 2024, while leaving the July 9, 2024 hearing on the motion to dismiss unchanged. The order did not decide the motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Jara v. Regus Management Group LLC · No. 3:24-cv-02206
- Lin
- June 20, 2024
Background
Regus Management Group LLC filed a motion to dismiss on May 29, 2024. Jara’s opposition was due June 12, 2024, but she filed it on June 18, 2024, without asking the court for permission or explaining the delay. Under the existing schedule, Regus would have had only one day to prepare its reply.
Court’s analysis
The court cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B), which allows a court to extend a deadline after it has expired when the party’s failure to act resulted from excusable neglect. The court identified four factors relevant to excusable neglect: possible prejudice to the other party, the length and effect of the delay, the reason for the delay and whether it was within the filing party’s control, and whether the conduct was in good faith.
The opinion states that Regus had not filed a motion seeking an extension. It then orders Regus to show cause in writing why “she” filed the opposition six days late and permits the show-cause response to request leave for the court to consider the late opposition. The opinion’s wording is internally inconsistent because it earlier identifies Jara as the person who filed the opposition but directs Regus to respond about the filing.
Ruling and schedule
Judge Rita F. Lin ordered the show-cause response to be filed by June 26, 2024. The court moved Regus’s reply deadline to June 26, 2024, and kept the motion-to-dismiss hearing scheduled for July 9, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. The order addresses briefing deadlines and the late filing; it does not rule on the merits of the motion to dismiss.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.