States Urge Denial of Robocallers’ Belated Motion for Deadline Extension

The 48 states and the District of Columbia that allege VoIP services provider Avid Telecom, its CEO Michael Lansky and its Vice President Stacey Reeves facilitate robocalls or help others make robocalls (see 2305240010) oppose the defendants’ Sept. 8 motion for a 30-day extension to Oct. 9 to answer the states’ complaint, said their opposition Wednesday (docket 4:23-cv-00233) in U.S. District Court for Arizona in Tucson. When a party fails to timely act, a court “may extend the time to act for good cause if that party failed to act as a result of excusable neglect,” said the opposition. But the defendants “have failed to demonstrate, or even argue,” that their failure to respond to the complaint was the result of excusable neglect, it said. The defendants filed their motion for an extension a day after their response to the complaint was due Sept. 7, and they’re wrong to blame the untimeliness of their motion as a docketing issue, said the states. The defendants’ counsel’s failure to seek admission pro hac vice until after regular business hours on the day of the filing deadline, in a case that has been pending for more than 100 days, is neither a docketing issue nor excusable neglect, said the opposition. Any further extension of time would prejudice the plaintiffs in that it would delay the start of discovery, it said. That would potentially lead to the unavailability of evidence or the failure of witnesses’ memories, it said. It would also allow the defendants “to benefit from their own dilatory actions” in failing to timely respond to the complaint or to otherwise comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and local rules of the court, it said. The states want the court to deny the defendants’ belated motion to extend and to enter a default against them, said their opposition. If a default is entered, the defendants won’t be left “without options,” it said. The defendants will have an opportunity to ask the court to set aside the default for good cause, it said. The defendants also wouldn’t be prejudiced if the court “imposes restrictions on their ability to make any answers, responses, and/or affirmative defenses,” because the untimely filing was caused by the defendants’ “inaction,” it said.