Blue Bay Ventures LLC v. John Buys Bay Homes LLC, et al.
- Thomas Hixson
- 3:24-cv-07146
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Blue Bay Ventures v. John Buys Bay Homes, Judge Hixson accepted the late opposition and extended Defendants’ reply deadline.
Blue Bay Ventures LLC’s late-filed opposition will be considered. Defendants received an extended deadline to file their reply, now March 12, 2026.
What happened
In Blue Bay Ventures LLC v. John Buys Bay Homes LLC, et al., Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, and Plaintiff filed its opposition one day late. Plaintiff explained that its lawyers had mistakenly calendared the filing for 21 days before the hearing.
The court decided to consider Plaintiff’s opposition even though Plaintiff had not requested an extension. The court said resolving cases on their merits was preferable to relying on a minor procedural deadline issue.
Judge Thomas S. Hixson extended Defendants’ deadline to file a reply to March 12, 2026, to avoid prejudice. This order did not decide the summary-judgment motion itself.
The detailed version
- Blue Bay Ventures LLC v. John Buys Bay Homes LLC, et al. · No. 3:24-cv-07146
- Thomas Hixson
- Mar. 5, 2026
Background
Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on February 17, 2026. Under the Northern District of California’s Civil Local Rule 7-3(a), Plaintiff’s opposition was due no more than 14 days after the motion was filed. Plaintiff filed its opposition on March 4, one day late, and explained that its lawyers had mistakenly calendared the filing for 21 days before the hearing. Plaintiff did not request an extension before filing.
Court’s action
The court noted that a court order is required to change a filing deadline under Civil Local Rule 6-1(b). It nevertheless exercised its discretion to consider Plaintiff’s opposition, stating that resolving cases on their merits is preferable to deciding them based on procedural technicalities when possible.
To avoid prejudice to Defendants, the court extended their deadline to file a reply to March 12, 2026. The order addressed only the briefing deadlines and did not rule on the merits of Defendants’ summary-judgment motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.