Minutes | Filed: August 18, 2026
| Entered: August 18, 2026
Nelson et al v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. et al
Civil Rights: Jobs | Hawaii
1 - Terminate Motion Deadlines/Hearings (inc F&R) Order on Motion for Leave to File
On August 13, 2026, Plaintiffs filed:
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' AMENDED MOTION TO PARTIALLY DISMISS THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF No. 272).
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B), the Court may, for good cause, extend the time to file an opposition to a motion if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B).
To evaluate excusable neglect under Rule 6 the court considers: (1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on the proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay, and (4) if the movant acted in good faith. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1261 (9th Cir. 2010).
First, there is no danger of prejudice to the Defendants in allowing Plaintiffs to file Oppositions to their Amended Motions. Motions for leave pursuant to Rule 6(b)(1)(B) are to be liberally construed to effectuate the general purpose of seeing that motions are decided on the merits. Estate of Taschek v. Fidelity Life Assoc., 740 F.Supp.3d 1072, 1079 (D. Nev. 2024). Deciding Defendants' Motions on their merits with full briefing does not prejudice the Defendants.
Second, a short delay to allow Plaintiffs to file Oppositions is reasonable given the procedural posture of this case. The Motions were originally filed in 2025 and were amended in July 2026 given the Court's rulings in the parallel proceeding in O'Haiplin v. Hawaiian Airlines, 22-cv-00532 HG-WRP. This case had other pending Motions pursuant to the Railway Labor Act that also affected the timing of the briefing on Defendants' pending Motions. An additional delay will not substantially disrupt the overall timing in this case.
Third, the complex procedural history in this case involving the parallel proceedings in O'Hailpin along with the timing of the Magistrate Judge's ruling on the discovery issue resulted in the missed deadline by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' proffered reason is reasonable given the cases' complexities and the overlapping rulings and orders.
Fourth, the missed deadline was not a tactical decision by Plaintiffs and was not done intentionally or for a strategic purpose. Plaintiffs have shown a sustained interest in the case and the issues involved in it and the parallel case O'Hailpin. Plaintiffs have previously met all briefing deadlines over the course of years of litigation.
The Court finds good cause to extend the time for Plaintiffs to file their Oppositions to Defendants' Amended Motions.
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' AMENDED MOTION TO PARTIALLY DISMISS THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF No. 272) is GRANTED.
Defendants are given leave to file Oppositions to BOTH (1) Defendants' Amended Motion for Partial Dismissal (ECF No. 261) and to (2) Defendants' Amended Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 262).
Plaintiffs shall file their Oppositions to BOTH (1) Defendants' Amended Motion for Partial Dismissal (ECF No. 261) and to (2) Defendants' Amended Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 262) on or before Tuesday, September 1, 2026.
Defendants shall file their Replies on or before Tuesday, September 15, 2026.
(SENIOR JUDGE HELEN GILLMOR)(tl)