Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06583/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06583-49/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRY D. HAMILTON, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

v. )

)

)

HENRY W. WILLMS, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F 02-6583 AWI SMS

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

EX PARTE REQUEST FOR

ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO

FILE MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

(Document #572)

On March 6, 2007, the court granted Defendants’ motion to enforce a stipulation to

dismiss claims and granted Defendants’ motion for sanctions against Plaintiff. After receiving

one extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration of this order, on March 29, 2007,

Plaintiffs, through Attorney Anthony P. Capozzi, filed a second ex parte request for an

enlargement of time in which to file a motion for reconsideration. On March 29, 2007,

Defendants filed an opposition. On March 30, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a reply. In the reply,

Plaintiffs provide evidence that Attorney David F. Brown is willing to appear on behalf of

Plaintiffs concerning a motion for reconsideration. 

Rule 6(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

When by these rules or by a notice given thereunder or by order of court an act is

required or allowed to be done at or within a specified time, the court for cause

shown may at any time in its discretion (1) with or without motion or notice order

the period enlarged if request therefor is made before the expiration of the period

originally prescribed or as extended by a previous order, or (2) upon motion made

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 579 Filed 04/02/07 Page 1 of 2
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

after the expiration of the specified period permit the act to be done where the

failure to act was the result of excusable neglect; but it may not extend the time

for taking any action under Rules 50(b) and (c)(2), 52(b), 59(b), (d) and (e), and

60(b), except to the extent and under the conditions stated in them.

Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 6(b). Plaintiffs have shown good cause to grant Plaintiffs one more week in

which to file their motion for reconsideration. Attorney David Gilmore recently withdrew as

Plaintiffs’ counsel. Attorney Capozzi has filed a motion to withdraw as Plaintiffs’ counsel. It

appears that Attorney Capozzi’s reasons for wanting to withdraw may be related to the court’s

March 7, 2007 order, making it difficult to file the motion. The evidence before the court

indicates that Plaintiffs are attempting to obtain other counsel, and Attorney David R. Brown will

represent Plaintiffs for at least the motion for reconsideration. While the court agrees with

Defendants’ concerns over the delays in this action, the court does not find that a one week

continuance will cause any significant delay. 

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that:

1. Plaintiffs’ ex parte request is GRANTED; and

2. Any motion for reconsideration of the court’s March 7, 2007 order enforcing the

stipulation and granting sanctions SHALL BE FILED by April 6, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 30, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 579 Filed 04/02/07 Page 2 of 2