Barroca v. Hayward Area Recreation and Parks District
- Edward Chen
- 3:25-cv-00440
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate and have been consolidated across spelling variants.
In Robert Barroca v. Hayward Area Recreation and Parks District, Judge Chen denied Barroca’s request to extend the deadline for filing a summary-judgment motion.
Robert Barroca, whose request to extend the filing deadline and submit a late summary-judgment motion was denied; and the defendants, including Ranger Hillary Fitzpatrick, whose opposition to the extension was accepted and whose timely summary-judgment motion remains part of the case.
What happened
Robert Barroca v. Hayward Area Recreation and Parks District concerns Barroca’s request to extend the deadline for dispositive motions from September 3, 2026, to September 25, 2026, and to file a summary-judgment motion late. The case’s only remaining claim is a civil-rights claim against Ranger Hillary Fitzpatrick.
Barroca said an assault, an injury requiring medical treatment, several days in custody, and deadlines in another legal proceeding prevented him from meeting the deadline. The defendants opposed the request. Fitzpatrick had already filed a timely summary-judgment motion on September 2, 2026.
Judge Edward M. Chen denied Barroca’s motion. The judge found that Barroca did not explain why he could not prepare the motion before the assault and that extending the deadline would disrupt the schedule and likely delay trial. The judge did not decide whether Barroca acted in bad faith.
The detailed version
- Barroca v. Hayward Area Recreation and Parks District · No. 3:25-cv-00440
- Edward Chen
- Sept. 18, 2026
Background
The court considered Robert Barroca’s motion to modify the dispositive-motion deadline and for permission to file a summary-judgment motion out of time. Barroca asked to move the deadline from September 3, 2026, to September 25, 2026. The only live claim is a single claim under Section 1983 alleging selective prosecution in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment against Ranger Hillary Fitzpatrick.
The court had set September 3 as the deadline for dispositive motions on March 17, 2026. The opinion states that discovery had been complete since July and that the deadline was the last day on which motions could be filed, meaning a party could file earlier. On September 2, Fitzpatrick timely filed a motion for summary judgment, with a hearing set for October 8, 2026.
Barroca filed his deadline-extension motion on September 14. He said he had been assaulted on August 20, suffered an injury requiring medical treatment, was held in custody for several days afterward, and had deadlines in another legal proceeding on September 9 and September 14. The defendants opposed the motion.
Legal standard
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B), a court may extend a deadline after it has expired when the party failed to act because of excusable neglect and shows good cause. The court considers the danger of prejudice to the opposing party, the length and effect of the delay, the reason for the delay, and whether the party acted in good faith.
Court’s analysis
The court said Barroca’s reasons for the delay were sympathetic, but he did not explain why he could not have prepared his motion before August 20. The court also emphasized that Barroca had known about the deadline since March 17 and that discovery had been complete since July.
The court found that the remaining factors favored denial. Extending the deadline would significantly disrupt the judicial proceedings because the case-management schedule set October 8 as the last day for dispositive-motion hearings. The court stated that an extension would likely delay the trial date and conflict with Barroca’s previously expressed desire to reach trial as early as possible. The trial date had been set to accommodate Barroca’s health concerns.
The defendants argued that Barroca acted in bad faith, citing missed deadlines, prior extension requests, his failure to seek an extension before September 14, and his failure to include his proposed motion. The court did not decide whether those circumstances showed bad faith.
Disposition
The court denied Barroca’s Motion to Modify Dispositive Motion Deadline and for Leave to File Motion for Summary Judgment Out of Time. This order addressed the filing deadline and did not decide the merits of the remaining Section 1983 claim or Fitzpatrick’s pending summary-judgment motion.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.