Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00986/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00986-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1391 Personal Injury

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AMERICAN SMALL BUSINESS

LEAGUE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MARTHA N. JOHNSON, in her capacity

as Administrator of the General Services

Administration, and THE GENERAL

SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,

Defendants. /

No. C 10-00986 WHA

ORDER RE BRIEFING

SCHEDULE FOR DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s second amended complaint in this matter was

noticed for hearing on August 12, 2010. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3, any brief in opposition

to plaintiff’s motion was due on July 22, 2010, but no opposition was received. Plaintiff was

ordered to respond by August 3, 2010, and show cause for its failure to respond to the motion in

accordance with Civil Local Rule 7-3(a) or alternatively to file a statement of nonopposition to

the motion as required by Civil Local Rule 7-3(b). 

Plaintiff’s attorney Robert Belshaw has now submitted a declaration that plaintiff’s failure

to respond is due entirely to his inadvertence. Attorney Belshaw overlooked the noticing of

defendant’s motion to dismiss on August 12 and did not become aware of it until July 27, 2010,

when plaintiff was ordered to show cause for its failure to respond (Belshaw Decl. at 2).

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B), “the Court may, for good cause,

extend the time” if a “party failed to act because of excusable neglect.” Whether plaintiff has

shown "excusable neglect" warranting additional time depends on consideration of four factors. 

Case 3:10-cv-00986-WHA Document 46 Filed 08/04/10 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

Briones v. Riviera Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d 379 (9th Cir. 1997) (adopting the four-factor test set

forth by the Supreme Court in Pioneer Investment Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assoc. Ltd.

Partnership, 507 U.S. 380 (1993)). These four factors are: (1) the danger of prejudice to the

opposing 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 person, and (4)

whether the person whose “neglect” is under scrutiny acted in good faith. Pioneer, 507 U.S. at

395. 

It is doubtful whether Attorney Belshaw’s inadvertence constitutes excusable neglect. 

Plaintiff and its counsel must do better. Nevertheless, plaintiff shall be given another opportunity. 

Because its opposition will be useful to the determination of the merits of defendants’ motion to

dismiss, the deadline for plaintiff to file its opposition shall be extended to AUGUST 9, 2010, AT

NOON. It is likely that plaintiff’s failure to meet this deadline would result in dismissal of the

case. Defendants’ reply shall be filed by NOON ON AUGUST 19, 2010. This motion shall be

decided on the papers. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 4, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-00986-WHA Document 46 Filed 08/04/10 Page 2 of 2