Felipe Pantone v. 100% Speedlab, LLC; Saule, LLC; and Does 1-10

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of California partially granted an unopposed motion to extend the defendants’ deadline to respond to the complaint. Applying the excusable-neglect standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B), the court ordered defendants to respond by July 21, 2025, while warning that future extension requests must satisfy the applicable standards.

Holdings

1. When a party moves for an extension after a deadline has passed, the applicable standard is excusable neglect under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B), not good cause.
2. Defendants did not make an adequate showing of excusable neglect because the asserted vacation of one principal did not explain why Defendants could not obtain counsel, respond timely, or request an extension before the deadline.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Defendants established excusable neglect under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B) to obtain an extension after the response deadline had expired.
2. Whether the interests of justice warranted granting some extension despite Defendants' inadequate showing concerning the reason for their delay.

Disposition

other