Taylor
Taylor v. Kelety
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 LULA MAE TAYLOR, Case No.: 20-cv-1987-DMS-AGS
Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
v. EXTENSION OF TIME TO
RESPOND
JULIA CRAIG KELETY, et al., Defendants. 16 On December 9, 2020, Plaintiff Lula Mae Taylor, proceeding pro se, filed a motion 17 for extension of time to respond to Defendants Tracey Martino, Stifter Law Corp., and John 18 Joseph Stifter IV’s (“Defendants”) motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 10.) 19 Plaintiff requested this extension after the time to respond to Defendants’ motion 20 had expired. Accordingly, to meet the good cause requirement for extension of time, 21 Plaintiff must show excusable neglect. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B). The determination of 22 whether neglect is excusable is an equitable one that depends on at least four factors: 23 “(1) the danger of prejudice to the non-moving party, (2) the length of delay and its 24 potential impact on judicial proceedings, (3) the reason for the delay, including whether it 25…