United States District Court, D. Oregon, Pendleton Division
SHAWNA COX, and those similarly situated, and those real parties to be joined as their names become known, Plaintiffs,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and JOHN DOES 1-100, Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
PATRICIA SULLIVAN United States Magistrate Judge.
Shawna Cox brings this action to challenge the federal
government's ownership of the Malheur National Wildlife
Refuge in Harney County, Oregon. The United States has moved
to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, or in the
alternative, for failure to state a claim. (Docket No. 4). In
her Response to that Motion, plaintiff moves to remand to
Oregon state court. (Docket No. 5). Plaintiff previously
moved for an extension of time to amend her Complaint and to
file a reply in support of her Motion to Remand (Docket No.
8), which the Court granted (Docket No. 9). Plaintiff now
moves for another extension, in her “Request for
Extension of Time to Resolve Unsettle State Court
Matters.” (Docket No. 10). The United States opposes.
(Docket No. 11). For the following reasons, the Court DENIES
Civ. P. 6(b)(1) permits the court to extend the time for a
party to undertake a particular action upon a showing of
“good cause.” The primary factor in determining
whether good cause exists is whether the party seeking
amendment was diligent in pursuing the amendment. See
Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609
(9th Cir.1992) (discussing “good cause” standard
under analogous Fed.R.Civ.P. 16). Under Local Rule 16-3(a),
objections to “any court-imposed deadline” must
be made by motion and: (1) “[s]how good cause why the
deadlines should be modified”; (2) “[s]how
effective prior use of time”; (3) “[r]ecommend a
new date for the deadline in question”; and (4)
“[s]how the impact of the proposed extension on other
existing deadlines, settings, or schedules.”
to grant an extension of time lies within the district
court's discretion. See Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures,
Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258 (9th Cir. 2010). “Rule
6(b) gives the court extensive flexibility to modify
the fixed time periods found throughout the rules, whether
the enlargement is sought before or after the actual
termination of the allotted time.” Lujan v.
Nat'l Wildlife Fed., 497 U.S. 871, 905 n.7 (1990)
(emphasis added) (citing 4A C. Wright & A. Miller,
Federal Practice and Procedure § 1165, p.475 (2d ed.
requests a 90-day extension to file a reply in support of her
Motion to Remand, so that she may “address and resolve
unsettled matters in Harney County District Court as they
will have a direct effect on the proceeding herein.”
Pl. Request for Extension, at 1 (Docket No. 10). In an
attached affidavit, plaintiff recites purported “fatal
due process violations and errors” in this matter when
it was in Oregon state court, id., Ex. 1, Cox Aff.;
plaintiff had originally filed this action in Harney County
Circuit Court, and the United States removed to this Court
because the federal government is the defendant, see
28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1); Notice of Removal (Docket No.
1). Plaintiff asserts that the state court should have
entered default in this action. Cox Aff. ¶¶ 10-11.
previously obtained a 30-day extension to reply. (Docket No.
9). In moving for that extension, plaintiff represented that
she needed additional time to reply because she “had
three recent funerals of close family friends and [would] be
attending to family duties out of state for 10 days.”
Pl. Mot. for Extension, at 1 (Docket No. 8). Plaintiff's
Reply (under her original extension) was due May 15, 2017.
Plaintiff filed the present Request on May 9, 2017.
has not shown good cause for a second extension. Plaintiff
has not explained how she has made diligent use of her time
already, including the already-granted first extension. In
fact, she gives no explanation of why she requires a second,
considerably lengthier, extension (unlike her explanation for
why she needed the original extension). Plaintiff has also
not explained why any purported problems in state court
affect the questions before this Court on her and the United
States' Motions. These questions are whether this action
was properly removed and whether this Court has
subject-matter jurisdiction, neither of which turns on
procedural issues in state court. Plaintiff has not explained
how any action she might take in state court would affect
these analyses, and it appears to the Court that no such
action would. Additional extensions in this matter would thus
be futile. Therefore, there is no good cause shown for
plaintiff's requested, second extension.
these reasons, the Court DENIES plaintiff's Request for