Banuelos v. Dominos Pizza LLC, a Michigan limited liability company
- Beth Freeman
- 5:24-cv-07085
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Banuelos v. Dominos Pizza LLC, Judge Freeman granted Domino’s motion to extend its deadline to respond to the complaint by 21 days.
Dominos Pizza LLC received additional time to respond to Benjamin Banuelos’s complaint; the opinion states that Banuelos did not oppose the extension motion.
What happened
In Banuelos v. Dominos Pizza LLC, Domino’s Pizza asked for more time to respond to Benjamin Banuelos’s complaint after missing the original deadline. Banuelos did not oppose the request, and a motion to send the case back to state court was still pending.
The court applied the rule allowing deadline extensions for good cause and excusable neglect. It found that the delay’s effect would be minimal, prejudice to Banuelos would be negligible, and Domino’s missed the deadline because of an honest calendaring mistake while focusing on the remand motion.
Judge Freeman granted the motion. Domino’s received 21 days from the date it filed the extension motion to respond to the complaint.
The detailed version
- Banuelos v. Dominos Pizza LLC, a Michigan limited liability company · No. 5:24-cv-07085
- Beth Freeman
- Dec. 2, 2024
Background
Dominos Pizza LLC moved for an extension of time to respond to Benjamin Banuelos’s complaint. The company asked for a deadline 21 days after the date it filed its motion. Banuelos did not file a response to the extension request.
The original response deadline was October 16, 2024. The opinion states that Banuelos had filed a motion to remand the case—the request to return the removed case to state court—the day after removal. That motion was still pending when Dominos sought more time.
Court’s analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B) allows a court to extend an expired deadline when the party’s failure to act resulted from excusable neglect. The court applied four factors: possible prejudice to the opposing party, the length and effect of the delay, the reason for the delay, and whether the moving party acted in good faith.
The court found that the delay would be approximately two months from the original deadline, but that its effect on the case would be minimal because the motion to remand had to be decided before the case proceeded. The court also found that any prejudice to Banuelos would be negligible because he had been willing to agree to an extension under certain conditions and did not oppose the motion.
Dominos explained that its counsel made an honest calendaring mistake. Counsel believed that the response deadline would come after the court decided the remand motion and inadvertently failed to calendar the October 16 deadline while preparing the opposition to remand. The court found that this mistake qualified as excusable neglect in light of the minimal delay and prejudice.
The court also found that Dominos acted diligently and in good faith after discovering the error. The company promptly notified Banuelos’s counsel and tried to reach an agreement, but Banuelos would not agree to an unconditional extension unless Dominos limited its response to an answer or a motion to compel arbitration. Dominos then filed the extension motion. The court found no indication of bad faith.
Ruling
Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted Dominos Pizza LLC’s motion. Dominos had 21 days from the date it filed the motion for an extension of time to submit its response to Banuelos’s complaint.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.