HASSANSHAHI v. DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION DEA 10 (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

Shantia Hassanshahi appeals the district court's order granting the motion to dismiss ¹ filed by the United States, United States Drug Enforcement Administration, and others ² (hereafter collectively, DEA). We affirm.

Hassanshahi asserts that the district court abused its discretion when it denied his late motion to extend the filing deadline for his opposition to the motion to dismiss,³ and thereafter treated his failure to file the opposition as consent to the granting of the motion to dismiss.⁴ We disagree. A motion to extend time after a filing deadline has passed may be granted upon a showing of excusable neglect. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B); see also Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380, 391–92, 395, 113 S. Ct. 1489, 1496, 1498, 123 L. Ed. 2d 74 (1993). We agree with the district court that Hassanshahi failed to present a basis that would justify his failure to timely file his motion to extend time. See Petrone v. Veritas Software Corp. ( In re Veritas Software Corp. Sec. Litig.), 496 F.3d 962, 973–74 (9th Cir. 2007); Gwaduri v. I.N.S., 362 F.3d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir. 2004); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam); Kyle v. Campbell Soup Co., 28 F.3d 928, 930 (9th Cir. 1994); cf. Pincay v. Andrews, 389 F.3d 853, 859 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc). We note, by the way, that Hassanshahi failed to plead claims on which he could prevail.⁵

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).

2.   Those are: the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI); the Department of Justice (DOJ); the Department of Homeland Security (DHS); Uttam Dhillon, in his official capacity as Acting DEA Administrator; Christopher A. Wray, in his official capacity as Director of the FBI; William P. Barr, in his official capacity as Attorney General; and Kevin McAleenan, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of DHS. Public officers sued in their official capacities are automatically replaced by their successors. Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).

3.   See C.D. Cal. R. 7-9. His motion was filed a week after the deadline passed.

4.   See C.D. Cal. R. 7-12.

5.   Because his failures are dispositive, we need not and do not address the other issues he raises on appeal.