Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04880/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04880-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 720
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Relations Act
Cause of Action: 29:185 Labor/Mgt. Relations (Contracts)

---

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

LEON HARRISON,

Plaintiff,

v

COMCAST, et al,

Defendants. /

No C-04-4880 VRW

ORDER

Defendant Comcast of California/Colorado/Texas/

Washington, Inc, moved for summary judgment on September 26, 2005. 

Doc #21. Plaintiff Leon Harrison did not file an opposition to

defendant’s motion, but instead on December 1, 2005, filed a motion

to enlarge time to respond to defendant’s motion for summary

judgment. Doc #30. For the reasons stated below, the court GRANTS

Harrison’s motion to enlarge time.

Throughout this litigation, Harrison has claimed that he

has had problems with his attorney, Melina Burns. On February 5,

2005, Harrison himself filed a letter with the court, contending

that his attorney has failed to represent him adequately and has

been reported to the State Bar for ethical lapses and requesting

Case 3:04-cv-04880-VRW Document 34 Filed 03/07/06 Page 1 of 3
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

that this “case not be dismissed until I can retain a new

attorney.” Doc #10. On February 9, 2005, the court issued an

order indicating that “Burns’ registered e-mail address for

electronic filing is ‘invalidaddress@myrealbox.com,’ which the

court suspects is not a valid e-mail address.” Doc #11 at 1. The

court reminded Harrison that “unless he elects to proceed pro se,

his communication with the court should be through counsel, with

copies of all correspondence served on defendant.” Id at 2. 

Nonetheless, the court directed the clerk “to add plaintiff to the

service list at the return address he provided” “in view of Burns’

questionable e-mail address and the appearance that plaintiff is

effectively proceeding pro se.” Id.

On August 5, 2005, Harrison filed an application for an

order extending time. Doc #20. Although it is unclear what

extension Harrison was seeking, Harrison appears to have claimed

that he needed more time to complete depositions prior to the

dispositive motions date of September 15, 2005. Id at 2.

Also on August 5, 2005, Harrison filed a notice that

Burns was no longer representing him and that Harrison would be

representing himself. Doc #18. In a supporting declaration,

Harrison stated that Burns “did not appear at any of the hearing

dates or inform me if I needed to be present.” Doc #19.

In the present motion, Harrison again claims that “Burns

agreed to [begin] discovery [but] she did not do the agreed upon

discovery [and] she did not show up when I was deposed.” Doc #30

at 1. Harrison also indicates that he did not file an opposition

to defendant’s summary judgment motion because, “I had been

previously instructed to contact the court only through my

Case 3:04-cv-04880-VRW Document 34 Filed 03/07/06 Page 2 of 3
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

attorney. Not being an attorney I expected to receive a signed

order before submitting documents. I have never received a court

order authorizing me to represent myself.” Id. In fact, the court

administratively terminated Burns as Harrison’s attorney on August

5, 2005, but it appears that no notice was mailed to Harrison.

FRCP 6(b) permits the court upon a showing of cause to

extend an already-expired deadline “where the failure to act was

the result of excusable neglect.” Harrison apparently never

received notice that he was authorized to proceed pro se. Given

the apparent confusion that Harrison encountered regarding his

representation by Burns and given that Harrison is proceeding pro

se, his error here is unfortunate but understandable.

Because it is preferable to decide cases on their merits,

the court GRANTS Harrison’s motion. Doc #30. Harrison must file

his opposition to defendant’s summary judgment motion by March 17,

2006. If defendant so desires, defendant may file a reply by March

24, 2006. The court will not provide any further extensions in

this case.

Going forward, Harrison will be deemed to be proceeding

in propria persona and expected to comply with all applicable rules

and orders of the court and to do so in a timely fashion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:04-cv-04880-VRW Document 34 Filed 03/07/06 Page 3 of 3