Vikhrieva et al v. Stemedica Cell Technologies, Inc. et al

- 1 - 25cv0459
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
NINA VIKHRIEVA and SERGEY
LESHKOV,
Plaintiffs,
v.
STEMEDICA CELL TECHNOLOGIES,
INC.; ZIUZHITANG CO., LTD.;
ZHUHAI HENGQIN JIUZHITANG
YONGHE QIHANG FUND;
JIUZHITANG MAKER (BEIJING)
CELL TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.;
MAYNARD A. HOWE; ROGER J.
HOWE; DAVID HOWE; NIKOLAI I.
TANKOVICH; DIRK P. O’HARA;
SIMON GUO; CRAIG W. CARLSON;
MICHAEL K. STEINHAUSER;
SANOSTEM GLOBAL, LLC; DUNIYA
SANOSTEM, INC.; SHIVINDER S.
DEOL,
Defendants.
Case No. 25-cv-00459-BAS-SBC
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS
SANOSTEM GLOBAL, LLC AND
SHIVINDER S. DEOL’S MOTION
TO DISMISS (ECF No. 55)
Case 3:25-cv-00459-BAS-SBC Document 61 Filed 03/10/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 3

- 2 - 25cv0459
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Presently before the Court is Defendants Sanostem Global, LLC and Shivinder S.
Deol’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). (ECF
No. 55.) 	The Motion is fully briefed. 	(ECF Nos. 56, 58.) 	The Court finds this
motion suitable for 	determination 	on 	the 	papers 	submitted 	and 	without 	oral
argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); CivLR 7.1(d)(1).
Having reviewed the Motion, the Court finds it must be summarily denied for several
reasons. First, the Motion is untimely. District courts have broad authority to manage their
dockets and deny untimely requests. See, e.g., Dietz v. Bouldin, 579 U.S. 40, 45–47 (2016);
Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1088 (9th Cir. 2002). A party seeking to
justify a late filing must show “the party failed to act because of excusable neglect.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B); see also Pioneer Inv. Servs. v. Brunswick Assoc. Ltd. P’ship, 507
U.S. 380, 395 (1993) (providing four factors to determine excusable neglect).
Here, Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint was filed on May 30, 2025. (ECF No.
32.) Defendants filed an Answer to the First Amended Complaint on May 31, 2025. (ECF
No. 33.) Nevertheless, Defendants also filed their Motion to Dismiss on August 29, 2025.
(ECF No. 55.) 	The Motion was filed well after the deadline to respond to the First
Amended Complaint, and Defendants do not demonstrate they failed to act due to
excusable neglect. Therefore, the Motion is subject to denial on this ground.
Second, the Motion to Dismiss does not comply with the Southern District of
California’s Civil Local Rules. Local rules are designed “to avoid an unnecessary burden
on the court.” Smith v. Frank, 923 F.2d 139, 142 (9th Cir. 1991). They have the “force of
law.” Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 191 (2010) (quoting Weil v. Neary, 278 U.S.
160, 169 (1929)). Sanctions for failing to follow court rules may take various forms,
including the striking of appropriate pleadings. 	Smith v. Frank, 923 F.2d 139, 142 (9th
Cir. 1991).
Under Civil Local Rule 7.1(e), the memorandum in support of a motion must not
exceed twenty-five pages, and the reply memorandum is limited to ten pages. 	In this
instance, the memorandum in support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss spans about thirty
Case 3:25-cv-00459-BAS-SBC Document 61 Filed 03/10/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 3

- 3 - 25cv0459
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
pages. 	(See ECF No. 55-1.) 	In addition, despite Plaintiffs flagging this issue when
opposing the Motion, Defendants still filed a Reply that spans about twenty-one pages.
(See ECF No. 58.) Both filings exceed the page limits by a substantial margin. Defendants
did not seek leave to exceed the page limits. 	Their noncompliance with the Local Rules
provides an additional basis to deny the Motion.
Third, the Motion to Dismiss flouts this Court’s Standing Order for Civil Cases. The
Court’s Standing Order has the same force as any court order, and a failure to comply with
it may lead to sanctions. 	See, e.g., Afifeh v. Ahmadabadi, No. 2:22-CV-00928-SB-AFM,
2022 WL 1617989, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2022). 	Relevant here, the Court’s Standing
Order requires a meet-and-confer conference “at least seven days prior to the filing of the
motion.” Standing Order § 4.A.
The record shows that Defendants first attempted to meet and confer concerning the
Motion to Dismiss on Friday, August 29, 2025, at approximately 6:37 p.m., shortly before
filing the Motion that same evening. (ECF Nos. 55, 56.) That effort falls far short of the
Court’s requirements and independently supports denial of the Motion.
In their Reply, Defendants attempt to brush off these issues as “procedural slight[s]
of hand,” “procedural nitpicking,” and “procedural gamesmanship.” (ECF No. 58.) Yet
Defendants’ repeated failure to comply with the rules cannot be excused by disparaging
the opposing party for pointing them out. 	Defendants’ disregard of the rules—and their
attempt to trivialize them after the fact—only underscores the seriousness of the violations.
Consequently, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 55) on
multiple independent grounds. 	Further, the Court warns Defendants Sanostem Global,
LLC and Shivinder S. Deol and their counsel that future violations of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, the Local Rules, or this Court’s Standing Order may result in sanctions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 10, 2026
Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Case 3:25-cv-00459-BAS-SBC Document 61 Filed 03/10/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 3