Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-07794/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-07794-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES SILLER JR.,

Plaintiff, No. C 06-7794 PJH

v. ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE

MOTION TO FILE BELATED

BLOCKBUSTER INC., and DOES OPPOSITION

1-10,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

On January 24, 2007, the court issued an order denying plaintiff’s motion to enlarge

time, and construing plaintiff’s request therein to file an untimely opposition brief as an

administrative motion to allow a late filing. Plaintiff sought to file the opposition brief in

response to defendant’s pending motion to dismiss, currently set for hearing on February

21, 2007. The deadline for filing plaintiff’s opposition brief was January 10, 2007. Plaintiff

waited almost two weeks before filing his administrative request, along with the proposed

opposition brief. 

Defendant has now submitted its opposition to plaintiff’s administrative request, and

argues that plaintiff has failed to demonstrate excusable neglect, and that a late filing will

prejudice defendant. This is largely correct. Plaintiff has not met the excusable neglect

standard set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(2) as a prerequisite to an order

granting leave to file a belated brief. Nonetheless, in view of plaintiff’s pro per status, the

court will GRANT plaintiff’s request to file the untimely opposition brief that was submitted

in conjunction with plaintiff’s motion to enlarge time. Plaintiff should note, however, that this

is his only “free bite” at the apple. No further violations of the local rules will be

countenanced. 

Case 4:06-cv-07794-PJH Document 20 Filed 02/02/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

Defendant is hereby granted one week, until February 9, in which to file an

additional reply, if it wishes to do so. This still ensures adequate time for the court’s full

consideration of the motion, as the hearing on the motion to dismiss has been continued to

February 21, 2007. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 2, 2007 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-07794-PJH Document 20 Filed 02/02/07 Page 2 of 2