1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THE ESTATE OF RAYMOND Case No. 24-cv-0234-BAS-MMP

VOGELMAN; J. LESLIE CRAWFORD,

12

ORDER

Plaintiffs, 13 1. GRANTING JOINT MOTION v. TO DISMISS CAUSE OF 14 ACTION (ECF No. 65) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., 15 2. GRANTING JOINT MOTIONS Defendants. TO EXTEND DEADLINES 16 (ECF Nos. 68, 70) 17 3. DENYING EX PARTE

REQUEST AS MOOT

18 (ECF No. 73) 19 20 Before the Court are four motions: (1) Plaintiffs’ and Liberty Healthcare of 21 California, Inc.’s (“Liberty”) joint motion to dismiss the ninth cause of action for 22 negligence against Liberty (ECF No. 65); (2) Plaintiffs’ and Naphcare of San Diego, LLC’s 23 (“Naphcare”) motion to extend Naphcare’s deadline to respond to Plaintiffs’ Second 24 Amended Complaint (ECF No. 68); (3) Plaintiffs’ and Defendant Jose Pena’s (“Pena”) 25 motion to extend Pena’s deadline to respond to the Second Amended Complaint; and (4) 26 Plaintiffs’ ex parte motion for an extension of time to request an entry of default against 27 Pena (ECF No. 73). The Court GRANTS the first three and DENIES the last for the 28 following reasons. 1 The motion to dismiss a cause of action against Liberty (ECF No. 65). Liberty and 2 Plaintiffs jointly move under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) to dismiss 3 with prejudice the ninth cause of action for “Negligence – Survival Claim (CCP 377.30)” 4 as against Defendant Liberty only. (ECF No. 65.) A dismissal is without prejudice unless 5 the parties stipulate otherwise. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B). Here, the parties have 6 stipulated otherwise. (Id. at 2–3.) Having considered the parties’ request, the Court 7 GRANTS the Joint Motion. (Id.) The ninth cause of action in Plaintiffs’ Second Amended 8 Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as against Defendant LIBERTY 9 HEALTHCARE OF CALIFORNIA, INC. 10 The motions to extend Naphcare’s (ECF No. 68) and Pena’s (ECF No. 70) response 11 deadlines. The parties’ reasons to extend these two defendants’ response deadlines are 12 intertwined and so the Court considers the motions together. 13 Plaintiffs served Naphcare with the Second Amended Complaint and Amended 14 Summons on June 2, 2025. (ECF 43.) Thus, Naphcare’s deadline to respond to the Second 15 Amended Complaint was June 23, 2025. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a). Naphcare did not respond. 16 Similarly, Plaintiffs timely served Pena on June 23, 2025. (ECF No. 52); Fed. R. Civ. P. 17 4(m). Under Rule 12(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the deadline to file an 18 answer or otherwise respond to the Second Amended Complaint for Pena was July 14, 19 2025, yet Pena did not respond. 20 Now each of these defendants moves with Plaintiffs to extend their response 21 deadlines. Motions to extend court deadlines must address different standards depending 22 on when they are filed in relation to the original deadline. Motions filed before the original 23 deadline must survive the “good cause” standard. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A). Motions filed 24 after the original deadline has expired must survive the “excusable neglect” standard. Fed. 25 R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B); see also Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1261 26 (9th Cir. 2010) (laying out the four factors for determining excusable neglect as “(1) the 27 danger of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact 28 on the proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the movant acted in good 1 || faith” (citing Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395 2 }|(1993))). 3 All parties appear to have acted in good faith in this matter. Pena was once employed 4 ||by Naphcare during the time period at issue in this case. Because of this, they were 5 |loriginally going to share representation. However, defense counsel soon identified a 6 || conflict, and Pena has lately obtained separate representation. While these discussions were 7 ||}ongoing, defense counsel requested, and obtained leave to file from Plaintiffs’ counsel, 8 ||several motions extending their response deadlines. Due to defense counsel’s oversight, 9 || however, these were not filed with the Court. 10 While this is not a strong reason for the delay, that Defendants Naphcare and Pena 11 the last to file responses to the Second Amended Complaint and will be filing a little 12 ||over a month after the first motion to dismiss was fully briefed, the Court finds that the 13 |/length of the delay will not have too great of an impact on proceedings. Moreover, that 14 || these motions are jointly filed with Plaintiffs indicates there is no prejudice to the opposing 15 ||party. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS each motion to extend. (ECF Nos. 68, 70.) 16 ||Defendants Pena and Naphcare are ORDERED to respond to the Second Amended 17 ||Complaint no later than August 20, 2025. 18 Plaintiffs’ ex parte Motion for an Extension of Time to Request Entry of Default 19 ||regarding Defendant Jose Pena is DENIED as moot; this Order extends Pena’s response 20 || deadline and therefore default would not be warranted before that deadline expires. (ECF 21 || No. 73.) 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 || DATED: August 11, 2025 ii ly A (Dipharb 25 Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge 6 United States District Court

27 28 □□□