Liu v. Terry

Background

The court had previously granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss and allowed Zheng Liu to file an amended complaint by July 20, 2021. Liu did not file an amended complaint by that date. The defendants then answered the original complaint, and Liu moved to strike their affirmative defenses.

The next day, Liu filed an administrative motion asking to extend the deadline to amend the complaint until 20 days after a settlement conference. The court decided the motion without a hearing.

Procedural requirements

The court held that Liu should have used Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 6-3, which governs requests to change a court-ordered deadline. His motion instead relied on Civil Local Rule 7-11. The court also found that the motion did not explain Liu’s efforts to obtain the defendants’ agreement to an extension, identify substantial harm or prejudice that would result from denying the request, disclose earlier changes to deadlines, or describe the effect of the requested extension on the case schedule.

The court further found that two declarations Liu filed after the defendants’ opposition improperly responded to the opposition and functioned as unauthorized reply submissions. It also rejected Liu’s assertion that he could assume the defendants would not agree to an extension because they had not immediately agreed to a settlement conference. According to the court, defense counsel had said only that she lacked authorization to agree at that time and would inquire, after which the court referred the parties to settlement.

Excusable neglect

Because Liu filed the request after the deadline had expired, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B) required him to show good cause and excusable neglect. The court applied the four-factor test considering prejudice to the opposing party, the length and effect of the delay, the reason for the delay, and whether Liu acted in good faith.

The court concluded that Liu had not shown excusable neglect. It found that the defendants would be prejudiced because they had already answered the original complaint and would have to answer again if an amended complaint were allowed. The court also noted that the length of the delay was unknown because no settlement conference date had been set.

The court found that Liu had not explained why he apparently took no steps to prepare an amended complaint before the clear July 20 deadline. It also found that his reference to a possibly mis-docketed deadline was insufficient. Finally, the court concluded that Liu had not acted in good faith because, after the defendants filed their answer, he moved to strike the defenses instead of promptly acknowledging the missed deadline and requesting an extension.

Disposition

The court denied Liu’s administrative motion to extend the deadline to file an amended complaint. It dismissed Liu’s motion to strike without prejudice. The court directed Liu to meet and confer with the defendants to try to resolve the issues before filing a motion to strike, but it did not extend the deadline for that motion. The order disposed of Docket Nos. 34 and 33 and did not decide the underlying claims.