Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Scott Desrosiers, who represents himself, sued Kirk Campbell, Nathan Doherty, Dr. Mildred Garcia, and Jessica Rentto in the Southern District of California. Defendants moved to dismiss, and the order refers to Plaintiff's response to that motion as his responsive filing. The order cites ECF No. 32 and Civil Local Rule 7.1.e.2 for the proposition that the response was due on September 21, 2026. It does not describe the underlying claims or the grounds for dismissal, and it does not decide the motion to dismiss.
Plaintiff did not file by that date. On October 2, 2026, eleven days after the due date, he filed a motion for leave to file an opposition to the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 33) and, at the same time, his response (ECF No. 34). The order's caption calls it an order granting a defendant's motion for an extension of time, but the body shows that the motion decided was Plaintiff's motion for leave, and the body controls the description here. Because the deadline had already passed, the court analyzed the request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B), which allows an extension on motion after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect.
The Court’s Holding
Chief Judge Cynthia Bashant granted Plaintiff's motion for leave. She described the excusable-neglect question as an equitable inquiry into all relevant circumstances surrounding the omission, citing Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership. The factors she listed were the danger of prejudice to the opposing party, the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, the reason for the delay, and whether the movant acted in good faith. She also cited a Southern District decision, quoting Ninth Circuit authority, for the principle that requests to continue deadlines should be granted absent bad faith or prejudice to the adverse party.
On the facts, the court found the delay minimal. It noted that Plaintiff filed his motion for leave together with his response, that he is proceeding pro se, and that he acted in good faith by promptly seeking relief once he recognized the missed deadline. It also found that Defendants would not be prejudiced because the case is still in its early stages. The order does not separately analyze why the deadline was missed beyond Plaintiff's recognition of it, and it does not make separate findings on the effect on the court's docket.
The relief is narrow. The court granted leave for Plaintiff's response to the motion to dismiss to be treated as filed on October 2, 2026, and found that the filing met the relevant deadline. The order does not rule on the merits of the motion to dismiss, set a reply schedule, or set a hearing, so as far as this order shows, the motion to dismiss remains pending.
Key Takeaways
- Under Rule 6(b)(1)(B), a court may accept a late filing after a deadline has passed when the party's failure to act resulted from excusable neglect, judged through an equitable weighing of all relevant circumstances.
- The court treated an eleven-day delay as minimal, particularly because the motion for leave and the response were filed together.
- The court relied on the plaintiff's pro se status and his prompt effort to cure the missed deadline in finding good faith, although the order does not explain why the deadline was missed beyond his recognition of it.
- The ruling is limited to timeliness; the court did not decide whether the motion to dismiss has merit, and the underlying claims are not described.
- Defendants were found not to be prejudiced because the case is at an early stage, a finding that could come out differently in a case further along.
Why It Matters
This is a short, routine case-management order from a district court, and it carries no precedential weight beyond this case. Its value is as an illustration of how a Southern District of California judge applies the Pioneer factors to a brief delay by a self-represented litigant when a motion for leave is paired with the late filing.
Litigants should not read the order as a guarantee of leniency. The result rested on a short delay, simultaneous filing, an early stage of the case, and the absence of prejudice. A longer delay, an unexplained lapse, or a showing of prejudice could lead to a different outcome, and a party is better served by asking for more time before the deadline expires, as Rule 6(b)(1)(A) allows.