Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_03-cv-02488/USCOURTS-casd-3_03-cv-02488-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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 - 03cv2488 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OTAY LAND COMPANY, a Delaware

limited liability company, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 03cv2488 BEN (POR)

ORDER 

DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTIONS FOR RELIEF

PURSUANT TO FRCP 6(b)(2) AND

FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTIONS

TO RETAX COSTS; and DENYING

PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE

APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER

SHORTENING TIME AS MOOT

[Dkt. Nos. 366, 369 & 370]

vs.

U.E. LIMITED, L.P., a California limited

partnership, et al.,

Defendants.

Now before the Court are the Plaintiffs’ motions for relief from the five-day limit for filing

motions to re-tax costs and Plaintiff’s motions for leave to file said motions late. Defendants are

prevailing parties. Defendants sought and received from the Clerk of Court an Order awarding

court costs. Unsatisfied with the Clerk’s decision, Plaintiffs sought review before the District

Court. Unfortunately, Plaintiffs’ motions to re-tax costs with respect to two groups of Defendants

(the Olin/Baldwin Defendants and the U.E. Defendants) were rejected for filing deficiencies. 

Plaintiffs now seek leave to file the motions to re-tax costs late on the basis of excusable neglect. 

The motions are denied. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) provides a five-day window in which to appeal

the decision on court costs rendered by the Clerk of Court. In their own briefs, Plaintiffs state that

Case 3:03-cv-02488-BEN-POR Document 386 Filed 08/27/07 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 - 03cv2488 

their attorneys received actual notice on January 12, 2007 and January 16, 2007, that their original

motions to re-tax were never filed. Yet, the present motions for relief were not filed until January

25, 2007. Even if the failed attempt at the original filing of the motion to re-tax costs is excused,

there is no apparent reason why Plaintiffs delayed more than five court days from the receipt of

actual notice to file the instant motions. While the first delay might be excusable, the second delay

is not.

Plaintiffs’ motions are Denied. Furthermore, Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application for an Order

Shortening Time to Have Plaintiffs’ Motions for Relief is Denied as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 27, 2007

Hon. Roger T. Benitez

United States District Judge

Case 3:03-cv-02488-BEN-POR Document 386 Filed 08/27/07 Page 2 of 2