P. v. Blue Cross of California dba as Anthem Blue Cross
- Beth Freeman
- 5:25-cv-02158
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Andrew P. v. Blue Cross of California, Judge Freeman granted Acomo’s motion to file its answer late after finding excusable neglect.
Acomo U.S. Holdings LLC d/b/a Tradin Organics USA LLC may file its answer late and must do so within 14 days of the order. The plaintiffs’ opposition was not filed, and the court found no prejudice to them.
What happened
Andrew P. and other plaintiffs sued Blue Cross of California and other defendants. Acomo U.S. Holdings LLC, doing business as Tradin Organics USA LLC, asked to file its answer after the deadline.
Acomo said the delay resulted from its lawyer’s inadvertent calendaring mistake. It argued that the delay was brief, the case was still in an early stage, and allowing the late filing would not prejudice the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs did not oppose the motion.
Judge Beth Freeman found that the delay was about one month, would not significantly affect the case, and was not shown to have prejudiced the plaintiffs. The court granted Acomo’s motion and ordered it to file its answer within 14 days of the order.
The detailed version
- P. v. Blue Cross of California dba as Anthem Blue Cross · No. 5:25-cv-02158
- Beth Freeman
- July 30, 2025
Background
Acomo U.S. Holdings LLC, doing business as Tradin Organics USA LLC, asked for permission to file its answer after the deadline. The plaintiffs did not oppose the motion. The court decided the motion without oral argument and vacated the scheduled hearing.
Acomo explained that the matter had been transferred to its lawyer’s office on June 11, 2025. A stipulation seeking an extension to June 30, 2025, had not been submitted for court approval, and counsel had inadvertently entered the wrong deadline on the calendar. After discovering the mistake, counsel promptly prepared the motion and proposed answer.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B) allows a court to extend a deadline after it has expired when the party’s failure to act resulted from “excusable neglect.” The court applied an equitable, four-factor test: the risk of 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.
Court’s analysis
The court found that the approximately one-month delay would not significantly affect the proceedings, particularly because the initial case management conference was set for November 6, 2025. The court also found that Acomo acted reasonably promptly after discovering the mistake. It saw no indication of bad faith or prejudice to the plaintiffs.
The court therefore concluded that the calendaring mistake fell within the bounds of excusable neglect and that good cause existed to allow the late answer.
Disposition
Judge Beth Freeman granted Acomo’s motion for leave to file its answer out of time. The court ordered Acomo U.S. Holdings LLC d/b/a Tradin Organics USA LLC to file its answer within 14 days of the order. The opinion contains a sentence referring to “Block’s late-filed motion to seal,” which appears inconsistent with the motion and ruling described elsewhere; the operative disposition clearly grants permission to file the answer late.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.