Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01332/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01332-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAUREL VILLAGE BAKERY LLC,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

GLOBAL PAYMENTS DIRECT INC,

Defendant. /

No. C06-01332 MJJ

ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’

OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE’S

ORDER DENYING THEIR MOTION

FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

Before the Court is Defendants’ Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Order Denying Their

Motion for Attorney’s Fees pursuant to Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc.

No. 37.) Specifically, Defendants object to Magistrate Judge Maria Elena James’ Order Denying

Defendants’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, which was filed on ECF on December 4, 2006. (See Hirsh

Decl. Exh. 1.) Defendants filed their objections on December 21, 2006. 

Rule 72(a) states:

Within 10 days after being served with a copy of the magistrate

judge’s order, a party may serve and file objections to the order; a

party may not thereafter assign as error a defect in the magistrate

judge’s order to which objection was not timely made.

Pursuant to Local Rule 5-6 and General Order 45, in a case designated for electronic filing, a

document is served on the date that it is filed on ECF. Here, Judge James’ Order was filed on ECF,

and therefore served on Defendants on December 4, 2006. Defendants did not file their objections

until December 21, 2006. Thus, Defendants’ objections were not timely. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 72(a). 

Case 3:06-cv-01332-MJJ Document 39 Filed 01/23/07 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

Absent any justification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure No. 6 for failing to timely file,

the Court declines to disturb the Magistrate Judge’s Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 1/23/2007 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-01332-MJJ Document 39 Filed 01/23/07 Page 2 of 2