Jara

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SARA JARA, Case No. 24-cv-02206-RFL

Plaintiff,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND

v. MODIFYING BRIEFING SCHEDULE

REGUS MANAGEMENT GROUP LLC, et Re: Dkt. Nos. 28, 33 al., Defendants.

Regus filed a Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 28) on May 29, 2024. Jara’s response was due by June 12, 2024. Without leave of Court or explanation for the delay, Jara filed her Opposition nearly one week later, on June 18, 2024. (Dkt. No. 33.) Under the current briefing schedule, Regus would be left with only one day to craft its reply. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B), “[w]hen an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time . . . on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect.” To assess excusable neglect, courts consider four factors: “(1) the danger of prejudice to the non-moving party, (2) the length of delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, (3) the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant, and (4)…