Judge Kymberly Evanson (W.D. Wash.), in yesterday's G.P. v. Arevalo, is largely unmoved by the argument, though she's also hesitant to throw out the client's case just because of that (emphasis added):
Plaintiff G.P. moves for an extension of the deadlines to file opposition briefs to three motions to dismiss …. The first two of these deadlines have already passed.
G.P.'s attorney states that the reason he was unable to meet the deadlines, confer with opposing counsel about an extension, or request an extension before now is that he has been residing in Alba, Italy for the last year and construction on his street has interrupted his "internet and telecommunications service" since about June 1, 2026. G.P.'s counsel does not suggest that he has been unable to access any source of internet during the last month, nor would such a claim be credible. Indeed, he has filed several briefs or other documents since the interruption at his residence began.
Although the Court is not yet persuaded that G.P.'s counsel has demonstrated diligence or good cause for his tardy request to extend the deadlines, denying his request would amount to terminating sanctions because the motions to dismiss at issue are dispositive. The Court is disinclined to impose such a sanction at this time.
Instead, Defendants Meta, Arevalo, and Jimenez are DIRECTED to notify the Court no later than July 6, 2026, whether they will stipulate to—or intend to oppose—G.P.'s requested extension and whether they request a commensurate extension of their reply deadline.
And the parties have indeed stipulated to the extensions.
