Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-07933/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-07933-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 690
Nature of Suit: Other Forfeiture and Penalty Suits
Cause of Action: 28:1345 Foreclosure

---

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

1

Docket No. 13.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

HOUSHANG POURMOHAMAD,

Claimant. /

No. C 06-7933 MJJ

ORDER GRANTING CLAIMANT’S

MOTION FOR TIME EXTENSION TO

FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS

INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is Claimant Houshang Pourmohamad’s (“Claimant”) Motion for Extension

of Time to file responsive pleadings (“Motion”) filed March 30, 2007.1

 Plaintiff United States of

America (“United States”) opposes Claimant’s motion (“Opposition”). For the following reasons,

the Court GRANTS Claimant’s motion for an extension of time. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On or about February 13, 2007, United States issued service of its forfeiture complaint to

Claimant’s home address in Richmond, California. (Motion at ¶ 3.) Claimant’s wife signed the

receipt of service as “M. Pourmohamad.” (Id.) However, Claimant’s wife did not notify Claimant’s

Counsel (“Counsel”) of her reception of the documents because she assumed that Counsel would file

a responsive pleading. (Id. at ¶ 4.) Counsel did not receive the forfeiture complaint until March 16,

2007 because United States sent the documents to Counsel’s former address in San Francisco,

Case 4:06-cv-07933-SBA Document 14 Filed 04/20/07 Page 1 of 4
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

California, rather than his current address in Berkeley, California. (Id. at ¶ 2.) 

Prior to service of the forfeiture complaint, Counsel appeared on Claimant’s behalf in the

criminal action underlying the present forfeiture action. (Id.) Throughout the course of the criminal

action, the United States Attorney’s Office served Counsel at his Berkeley address; moreover, the

original claim in the present matter indicated Counsel’s Berkeley address. (Id.) United States knew

that Counsel represented Claimant in the present forfeiture action. (Id. at ¶ 3.) 

Subsequently, on March 23, 2007, Counsel telephoned United States to request a time

extension. (Opposition at ¶ 2.) The attorney for United States told Counsel that she would not

object to a brief extension provided that Counsel establish “‘good cause’ in whatever he filed and the

Court agreed.” (Id.) United States and Counsel disagree as to whether United States agreed to grant

Counsel a time extension during the March 23, 2007 telephone call and, more specifically, whether

“good cause” exists to grant a motion for a time extension. 

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 6(b)(2) provides that the court may enlarge the

specified time period for an act “upon motion made after the expiration of the specified period . . .

where the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect.” Since it is a rule of general application,

courts are given broad discretion in granting or denying extensions. See, e.g., Rutledge v. Elec. Hose

& Rubber Co., 511 F.2d 668, 675 (9th Cir. 1975). 

The text of FRCP 6(b) places the burden of showing “excusable neglect” on the party

moving for an enlargement of time. Certain courts and commentators have opined that the movant

may meet this burden by a showing of good faith coupled with a showing that there was a reasonable

basis for not complying within the time specified. See e.g. In re Four Seasons Sec. Laws Litig., 493

F.2d 1288, 1290 (10th Cir. 1974). The Ninth Circuit appears to have adopted this standard. See

Silber v. Mabon, 18 F.3d 1449, 1455 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing with approval In re Four Seasons, 493

F.2d 1288); but see Marshall v. Gates, 812 F. Supp. 1050, 1053 (C.D. Cal. 1993) (although

plaintiff’s attorney claimed that the combination of his engagement in trial and his clients

incarceration made it physically impossible to comply with the prescribed deadline, the court

concluded that “neither of these two excuses singularly or in combination constitute excusable

Case 4:06-cv-07933-SBA Document 14 Filed 04/20/07 Page 2 of 4
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

3

neglect to justify the untimely filing”), rev’d on other grounds, 39 F.3d 1046 (1994).

The determination of excusable neglect “is an equitable one, taking account of all relevant

circumstances surrounding the party’s omission.” Pioneer Inv. Serv. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd.

P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993). Generally, the court will consider several factors, including “the

danger of prejudice to the [other party], the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial

proceedings, the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the

movant, and whether the movant acted in good faith.” Comm. for Idaho’s High Desert, Inc. v. Yost,

92 F.3d 814, 825 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 395).

ANALYSIS 

Claimant argues that a time extension is warranted because Counsel has not had sufficient

time to prepare a claim and answer to the forfeiture complaint. Moreover, Counsel’s need for more

time is attributable to “excusable neglect” predicated upon United States’s sending of the forfeiture

complaint to Claimant’s home address and Counsel’s prior business address rather than Counsel’s

current address in Berkeley, California. United States contends that good cause for a time extension

does not exist. Further, United States argues that Claimant has failed to attach a declaration in

support of his contention that he did not receive the forfeiture complaint or a declaration explaining

why he failed to submit a timely claim and answer. The Court is not convinced by United States’s

arguments. 

Having considered the circumstances surrounding the delay, the Court finds that Claimant

has satisfied his burden of demonstrating that the delay occurred in good faith and that there was a

reasonable basis for not filing a timely responsive pleading. First, the danger of prejudice to United

States is not substantial since United States is the moving party in the forfeiture claim. Moreover,

Plaintiff has been on notice throughout the underlying criminal action that Claimant would object to

Plaintiff’s forfeiture proceedings. Second, delaying the forfeiture proceedings to allow Claimant to

file a responsive pleading will not have a detrimental impact on United States or these judicial

proceedings. Third, United States is partially responsible for the delay by failing to send the

forfeiture complaint to Counsel’s current business address in accordance with prior practices. 

Accordingly, the Court finds that Claimant’s request for a time extension is reasonable, in good faith

Case 4:06-cv-07933-SBA Document 14 Filed 04/20/07 Page 3 of 4
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

4

and, therefore, based upon excusable neglect. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Claimant’s motion for an extension of time to

file a responsive pleading. Claimant shall have thirty days from the filing of this order to file a

responsive pleading.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April___, 2007 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:06-cv-07933-SBA Document 14 Filed 04/20/07 Page 4 of 4