Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04736/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04736-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 16:1538 Endangered Species Act

---

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

 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited.

Case No. C 04-4736 JF

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME

(JFLC1)

**E-Filed 8/31/06**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 04-4736 JF

ORDER1 GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’

REQUEST FOR AN ENLARGEMENT

OF TIME

On August 21, 2006, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(2), Plaintiffs

Center for Biological Diversity and California Native Plant Society filed a motion for an

enlargement of time for filing a motion for attorneys fees. The federal Defendants oppose the

motion. The Court has considered this matter without oral argument, pursuant to Civil Local

Rule 7-1(b).

On August 3, 2006, this Court issued an Order dismissing the instant action, pursuant to

the parties’ stipulation. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2) provides that, “[u]nless

otherwise provided by statute or order of the court,” a motion for attorneys fees “must be filed no

later than 14 days after entry of judgment.” Accordingly, any motion for attorneys fees in the

Case 5:04-cv-04736-JF Document 148 Filed 08/31/06 Page 1 of 4
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

Case No. C 04-4736 JF

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME

(JFLC1)

instant action should have been filed no later than August 17, 2006. 

Brian A. Litmans (“Litmans”), one of two attorneys representing the Plaintiffs, has

submitted a declaration in support of the instant motion. He states that, on Friday August 4,

2006, he entered the date for the filing of a motion for attorneys fees as August 17, 2006 on his

desktop computer. Litmans Decl. ¶ 5. On Monday August 7, 2006, he manually transferred files

to his new laptop, which he would use in his new office in Portland, Oregon. Id. ¶ 6. During this

process, he made the error of entering the filing date in the Outlook program on his laptop as

August 24, 2006. Id. He first learned of this error while conferring with co-counsel on August

21, 2006 and filed the instant motion for an enlargement of time that same day. Id. Plaintiffs

request an enlargement of time until September 3, 2006, but note that they would be prepared to

file a motion for attorneys fees as early as August 24, 2006.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) “allow[s] filing after the expiration of the deadline

because the failure to timely file was the result of excusable neglect.” Committee for Idaho’s

High Desert, Inc. v. Yost, 92 F.3d 814, 824 (9th Cir. 1996). It is within this Court’s discretion to

grant a Rule 6(b) motion for an enlargement of time. Id. As the Supreme Court has noted, “the

Courts of Appeals have generally recognized that ‘excusable neglect’ may extend to inadvertent

delays.” Pioneer Inv. Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 391-

92 (1993). “Although inadvertence, ignorance of the rules, or mistakes construing the rules do

not usually constitute ‘excusable’ neglect, it is clear that ‘excusable neglect’ under Rule 6(b) is a

somewhat ‘elastic concept’ and is not limited strictly to omissions caused by circumstances

beyond the control of the movant.” Id. at 392. The determination of whether neglect is

excusable “is at bottom an equitable one,” and the Court must consider “all relevant

circumstances surrounding the party’s omission.” Id. at 395. The relevant circumstances

include: “the danger of prejudice to the debtor, the length of the delay and its potential impact on

judicial proceedings, the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable

control of the movant, and whether the movant acted in good faith.” Id.

Defendants contend that Plaintiffs’ neglect is not excusable. They argue that Plaintiffs

have not established that their neglect was similar to the “failure of a ‘carefully designed’

Case 5:04-cv-04736-JF Document 148 Filed 08/31/06 Page 2 of 4
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

Case No. C 04-4736 JF

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME

(JFLC1)

calendaring system operated by experienced paralegals that heretofore had worked flawlessly” in

Pincay v. Andrews, 389 F.3d 853, 859 (9th Cir. 2004). Defendants mischaracterize Picay, which

held that courts should “determine the issue of excusable neglect within the context of the

particular case,” and that “[a]ny rationale suggesting that misinterpretation of an unambiguous

rule can never be excusable neglect is, in our view, contrary to that instruction.” Id.

Defendant also argues that there is no reason why Plaintiffs’ lead counsel, Michael Graf

(“Graf”), did not keep track of the correct filing date himself. Graf has submitted a declaration in

which he explains that he is listed as “lead counsel” only because Litmans is before this Court

Pro Hac Vice, and that they have worked as equal co-counsel throughout the instant litigation. 

Graf Decl. ¶ 2. Graf and Litmans have divided the work required for the litigation in order “to

litigate in an efficient manner given the limited resources we have to expend in operating

respective solo practices representing public interest environmental organizations.” Id. This

division of work between Graf and Litmans is a reasonable explanation of why Graf did not keep

track of the filing date himself.

Thus, Plaintiffs have presented evidence that their short delay was the result of excusable

neglect. Because the delay was short and the motion at issue is a motion for attorneys fees

following the settlement of the instant action, an enlargement of time will have very little impact

on judicial proceedings. Additionally, Defendants have not shown, or even argued, that they will

suffer any prejudice if this Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion for an enlargement of time. 

Accordingly, the Court will grant the instant motion. Because the Court has been unavailable to

rule on the instant motion until August 31, 2006, the Plaintiffs shall file their motion for

attorneys fees not later than September 8, 2006.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 31, 2006

 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:04-cv-04736-JF Document 148 Filed 08/31/06 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Case No. C 04-4736 JF

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME

(JFLC1)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

Michael Richard Eitel michael.eitel@usdoj.gov, marlene.frazier@usdoj.gov;

lisa.russell@usdoj.gov

Michael W. Graf mwgraf@aol.com,

Brian Litmans blitmans@gmail.com

Lisa Lynne Russell lisa.russell@usdoj.gov, deshonda.young@usdoj.gov

Paul Andrew Turcke pat@msbtlaw.com

Case 5:04-cv-04736-JF Document 148 Filed 08/31/06 Page 4 of 4