Boddy et al v. Pourciau et al, No. 2:2018cv01046 - Document 23 (W.D. Wash. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER granting in part and denying in part Defendants' 20 Motion for extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs Kyle Boddy and Driveline Baseball Enterprises, LLC's second amended complaint. Defendants are to respond to Plaintiffs' second amended complaint within seven (7) days of the date of this order. Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (PM)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Boddy et al v. Pourciau et al Doc. 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 9 10 KYLE BODDY, et al., CASE NO. C18-1046JLR Plaintiffs, 11 v. 12 13 BRENT POURCIAU, et al., Defendants. 14 15 16 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME I. INTRODUCTION Before the court is Defendants Brent Pourciau and Top Velocity, LLC’s 17 (collectively, “Defendants”) motion for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs Kyle 18 Boddy and Driveline Baseball Enterprises, LLC’s (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) second 19 amended complaint. (Mot. (Dkt. # 20); see also SAC (Dkt. # 10).) Plaintiffs filed a 20 response in which they ask the court to order Defendants to answer the second amended 21 complaint within seven (7) days of the date of the court’s order. (Resp. (Dkt. # 21).) The 22 court has considered the parties’ submissions in support of and in response to the motion, ORDER - 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 the relevant portions of the record, and the applicable law. Being fully advised, the court 2 GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants’ motion and ORDERS Defendants to 3 respond to Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint within seven (7) days of the date of this 4 order. 5 II. 6 BACKGROUND AND ANALSYSIS On November 9, 2017, Plaintiffs initiated a lawsuit for libel in King County 7 Superior Court against John Does, with the intention of amending the complaint after 8 they discovered who was responsible for the disputed statements. (See SAC ¶ 20; 9 Compl. (Dkt. # 8-1) at 4.) Upon learning Defendants’ identities, Plaintiffs amended their 10 complaint on June 20, 2018. (See FAC (Dkt. # 1-1).) Defendants then removed this 11 matter to this court on July 17, 2018. (See Not. of Rem. (Dkt. # 1).) After removal, 12 Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on July 26, 2018, in part to include 13 additional claims. (See SAC ¶¶ 36-40; see also Def. Memo (Dkt. # 14) at 2 (Defendants 14 stipulating to Plaintiffs amending their complaint for a second time).) 15 Defendants moved to dismiss this case for lack of personal jurisdiction and 16 improper venue or, in the alternative, to transfer. (MTD (Dkt. # 8).) In response, 17 Plaintiffs requested jurisdictional discovery if the court did not have sufficient facts to 18 determine personal jurisdiction. (See Resp. (Dkt. # 17) at 5 n.15.) On September 27, 19 2018, the court denied Defendants’ motion without prejudice and granted Plaintiffs 90 20 days to conduct jurisdictional discovery on the issues of specific and general personal 21 jurisdiction. (See generally 9/27/18 Order (Dkt. # 19).) 22 // ORDER - 2 1 Defendants now move for an extension of time “at least until January 7, 2019, 2 which is ten (10) days after the close of the jurisdictional discovery period,” to respond to 3 Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint. (See Mot. at 1-3.) Defendants represent that an 4 extension is necessary because “[t]he parties are currently participating in jurisdictional 5 discovery,” and that Defendants “intend to re-raise the jurisdictional issue” after the close 6 of discovery. (Id. at 2.) Defendants claim that responding to the second amended 7 complaint before the end of jurisdictional discovery places them in an untenable 8 situation: First, Defendants argue that any responsive pleading will require discovery 9 beyond the scope of the jurisdictional issue, which would therefore “place an undue 10 burden on Defendants.” (Id. (citing 9/27/18 Order at 21 (the court explaining that, while 11 personal jurisdiction remains in dispute, requiring Defendants to participate in discovery 12 beyond the jurisdictional issue would place an undue burden on Defendants)).) Second, 13 Defendants assert that, without an extension, they will be required to refile their motion 14 to dismiss or transfer while jurisdictional discovery is ongoing so that they do not waive 15 these arguments by filing some other response. (Mot. at 2-3.) According to Defendants, 16 Plaintiffs ability to engage in jurisdictional discovery after Defendants refile their motion 17 to dismiss or transfer would give Plaintiffs an “unfair advantage.” (Id. at 3.) 18 Plaintiffs respond that “[j]urisdictional discovery is complete.” (Resp. at 2.) 19 Therefore, additional delay would not bolster Defendants’ refiled motion to dismiss or 20 transfer, nor would it provide Plaintiffs an unfair advantage. (Id.) Plaintiffs also point 21 out that this case has already been pending for a year, and there is “no reason to give 22 Defendants another two months to answer the [second amended] complaint.” (Id. at 1-2.) ORDER - 3 1 Defendants do not cite any law in their motion (see generally Mot.), but it 2 appears that they request an extension pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6. 3 Under Rule 6, when an act must be done within a specified time, the court may extend 4 the time for good cause if the request for an extension is made before the original time or 5 its extension expires. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A). If the motion is made after the 6 deadline has expired, the moving party must show that he or she “failed to act because of 7 excusable neglect.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B). 8 Here, Defendants removed the case to this court on July 17, 2018. (See Not. of 9 Rem.) Within the time Defendants had to respond to Plaintiffs’ then-operative complaint, 10 Defendants filed their motion to dismiss or transfer. (See MTD (filed July 24, 2018)); see 11 also Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(c) (explaining the time periods in a removal action in which a 12 defendant must respond to a complaint). Plaintiffs then filed their second amended 13 complaint on July 26, 2018. (See SAC.) This complaint did not become operative, 14 however, until August 15, 2018, when the court accepted it. (See 8/15/18 Order (Dkt. 15 # 16) at 2-3.) Normally, a party must respond to an amended pleading “within the time 16 remaining to respond to the original pleading or within 14 days after service of the 17 amended pleading, whichever is later.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(3). However, because 18 Defendants’ motion to dismiss or transfer was pending when the court accepted 19 Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint (see 8/15/18 Order at 2-3; see generally Dkt.), the 20 deadline for Defendants’ response was controlled by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 12(a)(4), see Jimena v. UBS AG Bank, No. CV-F-07-367 OWW/SKO, 2010 WL 22 2353531, at *3 (E.D. Cal. June 9, 2010) (citing General Mills, Inc. v. Kraft Foods Glob., ORDER - 4 1 Inc., 495 F.3d 1378, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (explaining that, when a Rule 12 motion is 2 filed while there is still time remaining to respond to the original pleading, the Rule 3 12(a)(4) deadline controls when a defendant must respond to an amended pleading)). 4 Pursuant to Rule 12(a)(4), Defendants’ response to Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint 5 was therefore due within 14 days after the court ruled on Defendants’ pending motion to 6 dismiss or transfer. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4)(A). 7 The court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss or transfer on September 27, 8 2018. (See 9/27/18 Order.) Accordingly, Defendants had until October 11, 2018, to 9 respond to the second amended complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4)(A). Defendants, 10 however, filed their motion for an extension of time on November 9, 2018. (See Mot.) 11 Therefore, to receive a time extension, Defendants must show that they failed to respond 12 to Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint because of “excusable neglect.” See Fed. R. 13 Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B). In order to show excusable neglect, a party must show “good faith” 14 and a “reasonable basis” for not complying with a deadline. Silber v. Mabon, 18 F.3d 15 1449, 1455 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing In re Four Seasons Sec. Laws Litig., 493 F.2d 1288, 16 1290 (10th Cir. 1974)). 17 Without explicitly stating it, Defendants seem to argue that their excusable neglect 18 is tied to the fact that jurisdictional discovery remains ongoing. (See generally Mot.) 19 Defendants claim that they could not adequately respond to Plaintiffs’ second amended 20 complaint within the prescribed time period, at least not without giving Plaintiffs an 21 unfair advantage. (Id. at 2-3.) Plaintiffs, however, represent that jurisdictional discovery 22 is now complete and this case is ready to move to its next stages. (See generally Resp.) ORDER - 5 1 Thus, to the extent that Defendants’ neglect was excusable because of ongoing 2 jurisdictional discovery, that impediment has been lifted. 3 The court finds that Defendants exhibited excusable neglect in not responding to 4 Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint within the time prescribed by the federal rules. 5 The court does not find that Defendants acted in bad faith by not responding earlier, and 6 Defendants’ failure to respond—seemingly due to a misunderstanding of their obligations 7 during jurisdictional discovery—was reasonable. The court therefore GRANTS 8 Defendants’ motion for an extension of time due to Defendants’ excusable neglect, but 9 DENIES their request for an extension until January 7, 2019. Accordingly, the court 10 ORDERS Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint within seven 11 (7) days of the date of this order. 12 13 III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part 14 Defendants’ motion (Dkt. # 20) and ORDERS Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs’ 15 second amended complaint within seven (7) days of the date of this order. 16 Dated this 6th day of December, 2018. 17 18 A 19 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Court 20 21 22 ORDER - 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
