Nelson v. Chongqing Qiulong Technology Co. - Excusable Neglect Ruling

Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document The text of this document was obtained by analyzing a scanned document and may have typos.

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

April 20, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Lindsay Nelson and David Nelson v. Chongqing Qiulong Technology Co., Ltd dba Surron; Sur-Ron U.S.A, LLC; Luna Cycles, LLC; Panasonic Corporation of North America dba Panasonic Industrial Devices Service Company of America; and Doe Entities 1-100

District Court, D. Idaho

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 2:25-cv-00010

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (0)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

LINDSAY NELSON and DAVID
NELSON, Case No. 2:25-cv-00010-BLW

Plaintiffs, MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER
v.

CHONGQING QIULONG
TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD dba
SURRON; SUR-RON U.S.A, LLC;
LUNA CYCLES, LLC; PANASONIC
CORPORATION OF NORTH
AMERICA dba PANASONIC
INDUSTRIAL DEVICES SERVICE
COMPANY OF AMERICA; and
DOE ENTITIES 1-100,

Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
The Court has before it two related motions: (1) Plaintiff Lindsay and David
Nelson’s Motion for Extension of Time (Dkt. 42), and (2) Defendant Chongqing
Qiulong Technology Co., Ltd.’s (“CQT”) Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Untimely
Filings (Dkt. 39). The Court will grant Plaintiffs’ motion for an extension and deny
CQT’s motion to strike.
BACKGROUND
In October 2024, Lindsay and David Nelson filed this product-liability
action in state court. They allege that an e-bike manufactured by defendant CQT
experienced a thermal runaway event while charging in their garage, causing a fire

that spread to and destroyed their home. Defendant Panasonic Corporation of
North America removed the action to federal court based on diversity of
citizenship. All defendants except CQT have now answered the complaint. CQT

has moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
The Court will hear argument on CQT’s motion to dismiss—as well as
Plaintiffs’ related motion to conduct jurisdictional discovery—on Friday, April 24,
2026. Before that hearing, the Court will streamline matters by resolving two

motions arising from Plaintiffs’ untimely filings. See Dkts. 39, 42.
DISCUSSION
CQT filed its motion to dismiss on November 21, 2025. Plaintiffs’ response

was thus due on December 12, 2025. At Plaintiffs’ request, and with CQT’s
agreement, the Court extended that deadline to January 12, 2026. See Dkt. 27.
Plaintiffs did not file their response by that deadline. Instead, they filed their
response and supporting materials on January 13, 2026—one day late.

Separately, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to conduct jurisdictional
discovery on January 14, 2026. CQT timely responded on February 4, 2026.
Plaintiffs’ reply was due on February 18, 2026, but was filed one February 19,

2026—again, one day late.
Plaintiffs did not seek an extension of time prior to either missed deadline.
They did, however, later move for an extension of time, asserting that both late

filings resulted from a calendaring error. This motion was filed after CQT asked
the Court to strike the late filings.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B), the Court may extend a

deadline after it has expired upon a showing of “excusable neglect.” In evaluating
excusable neglect, courts consider the danger of prejudice to the opposing party,
the length of the delay and its potential impact on the proceedings, the reason for
the delay, and whether the movant acted in good faith. See Ahanchian v. Xenon

Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1261 (9th Cir. 2010)
Here, the delays at issue were minimal—each filing was submitted one day
late. There is no indication that these brief delays prejudiced CQT, or that the delay

will have any impact on the proceedings whatever. Indeed, CQT fully briefed the
underlying motions and has not identified any concrete harm arising from the
timing of Plaintiffs’ filings. Plaintiffs’ counsel explains that the one-day error was
the result of a calendaring error and was not part of any larger effort to “game the

system” or “cause delay or hardship.” Mtn. Mem., Dkt. 42-1, at 5.
The Court is mindful that Plaintiffs’ counsel has not been meticulous in
adhering to deadlines in this case. These lapses, though minor, are concerning and

fall short of the level of diligence expected. That said, the Court must balance
those concerns against the strong preference for resolving cases on their merits.
The one-day delays at issue did not disrupt the Court’s schedule, did not affect the

pending April 24, 2026 hearing, and did not impair the orderly progression of the
case.
In sum, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have demonstrated excusable

neglect sufficient to warrant a brief extension of time under Rule 6(b)(1)(B).
Accordingly, the Court will grant Plaintiffs’ motion for extension of time and deem
their filings timely.
Because the Court accepts Plaintiffs’ late filings, CQT’s motion to strike

those filings is moot. Even if they were not moot, however, the Court would
decline to impose the severe remedy of striking the filings. The brief delays do not
merit such a remedy. Further, the Court is not persuaded by CQT’s argument that

Plaintiffs’ filings should be stricken because they contain “demonstrably incorrect
factual assertions” and because Plaintiffs’ counsel declined to meet and confer
regarding those issues. See CQT Mtn. Mem., Dkt. 39, at 8. The Court is not
persuaded that these concerns warrant striking the filings. Instead, to the extent

CQT contends Plaintiffs’ filings are inaccurate, misleading, or unsupported, those
arguments will be evaluated when the Court resolves the underlying motion to
dismiss and motion for jurisdictional discovery.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Extension of Time (Dkt. 42) is GRANTED.
Plaintiffs’ filings at Dkts, 31, 32, and 38 are deemed timely filed.
2. Defendant CQT’s Motion to Strike (Dkt. 39) is DENIED AS MOOT.

ASS DATED: April 20, 2026

tion U.S. District Court Judge

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 5