Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01243/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01243-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:77 Securities Fraud

---

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 This matter was determined to be suitable for decision without *

oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REUBEN & KATHARINE TOLENTINO; ) 2:07-CV-1243-GEB-DAD

KB PROPERTIES, LLC; JAMES & BRENDA )

HALL; HARPAUL & AMRITPAL NAGRA; )

WEST MULLEN IOWA, LLC; M & B REAL )

PROPERTIES, LLC; RIVER WIND, LLC, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) ORDER*

)

JEFFREY A. MOSSMAN; SCOTT G. )

MUELLER; DENNIS DUDLEY; INVESTORS )

ADVANTAGE CAPITAL FUND I, LLC; )

CASH FLOW FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC; )

GREATER CEDAR VALLEY FINANCIAL )

GROUP, LLC; GREATER CEDAR VALLEY )

FINANCIAL GROUP II, LLC; EAGLES )

NEST REAL ESTATE, LLC; BRO PROPERTY)

AND APPRAISALS, LLC; McRAE )

APPRAISALS, INC.; VALUATION )

SERVICES, INC.; MICHAEL FELTNER; )

and GARY DECLARK, )

)

Defendants. )

)

On March 4, 2008, Plaintiffs moved for leave to file an

untimely opposition to Defendants’ motions to dismiss and to transfer

venue. Defendants’ motions were set for hearing on March 10, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-01243-GEB-GGH Document 125 Filed 03/06/08 Page 1 of 3
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

Plaintiffs argue leave should be granted since their failure

to file a timely opposition resulted from excusable neglect. (Pls.’

Mot. at 2:23.) Plaintiffs’ counsel offers the following explanation

for its failure to file a timely opposition: a paralegal in

Plaintiffs’ counsel’s office incorrectly calendared the opposition due

date for March 7, 2008; generally, due dates are also checked by an

attorney; the opposition due date was not checked by an attorney

because the primary responsibility on this action was transferred to a

different attorney in the same firm after Defendants’ motions were

filed, and each attorney thought the other had checked the opposition

due date. (Id. at 2:2-20; Decl. Jay T. Jambeck in Supp. of Pls.’ Mot.

¶¶ 3-6.)

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b), Plaintiffs may

be granted an extension of time “if [Plaintiffs] failed to act because

of excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b); see Hill v. England,

2007 WL 3132930, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2007) (applying “excusable

neglect” standard to plaintiff’s request to file an untimely

opposition to defendant’s summary judgment motion). The determination

whether “excusable neglect” has been established is made by balancing

four factors: “(1) the danger of prejudice to the non-moving party,

(2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial

proceedings, (3) the reason for the delay, including whether it was

within the reasonable control of the movant, and (4) whether the

moving party’s conduct was in good faith.” Pincay v. Andrews, 389

F.3d 853, 855 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v.

Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993)). 

“[E]xcusable neglect includes ‘situations in which the failure to

comply with a filing deadline is attributable to negligence.’” Marx

Case 2:07-cv-01243-GEB-GGH Document 125 Filed 03/06/08 Page 2 of 3
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

v. Loral Corp., 87 F.3d 1049, 1054 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Pioneer,

507 U.S. at 394).

Plaintiffs argue Defendants will not be prejudiced by

permitting Plaintiffs to file an untimely opposition. (Pls.’ Mot. at

3:4-10.) Since Plaintiffs request that Defendants be granted

additional time to file a reply brief, the “primary impact of the

failure of Plaintiffs to timely file an opposition is a delay in the

hearing or determination of Defendants’ motions.” (Id.) Further, the

“length of the delay will be minimal, as Plaintiffs are prepared to

file their oppositions” immediately. (Id. at 3:11-13.) Although the

reason for the delay is Plaintiffs’ counsel’s negligence, there is no

indication that Plaintiffs’ counsel did not act in good faith.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs are granted leave to file their

opposition to Defendants’ motions on or before March 7, 2008. 

Defendants’ reply to Plaintiffs’ opposition, if any, shall be filed on

or before March 14, 2008.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 6, 2008

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:07-cv-01243-GEB-GGH Document 125 Filed 03/06/08 Page 3 of 3