Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01332/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01332-7/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., a New

York Corporation; HSBC BANK USA, N.A.;

MERCURY PAYMENT SYSTEMS, LLC, a

Colorado Corporation,

Defendant. /

No. C06-01332 MJJ

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND THE

JANUARY 23, 2007 ORDER DECLINING

TO CONSIDER DEFENDANT’S

OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE’S

ORDER DENYING ITS MOTION FOR

ATTORNEY’S FEES AND ORDER TO

SHOW CAUSE

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Alter or Amend the Court’s January 23, 2007

Order, which relied on untimeliness in declining to disturb the Magistrate’s Judge’s Order Denying

Defendants’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. (Docket No. 36.) The Magistrate Judge issued her order

on December 4, 2006 and Defendants’ filed their Objection on December 21, 2006.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 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.

Reading that rule alone, the last day for Defendants to file a timely objection would have

been December 18, 2006. However, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 6(e) allows that:

Whenever a party must or may act within a prescribed period after

service and service is made under Rule 5(b)(2)(B), (C), or (D), 3 days

are added after the prescribed period would otherwise expire under

subdivision (a).

Case 3:06-cv-01332-MJJ Document 41 Filed 02/28/07 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

Under Rule 5(b)(2)(D), service is made by “delivering a copy by any other means, including

electronic means, consented to in writing by the person served.” 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, the Magistrate Judge’s Order was filed on ECF, and therefore served on

Defendants on December 4, 2006. 

Reading these rules in conjunction, Defendants’ Objection filed on December 21, 2006 was

timely and the Court hereby alters its January 23, 2007 Order. 

Plaintiff has not yet filed a response to Defendants’ Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Order

Denying Their Motion For Attorneys’ Fees. (Docket No. 37.) Plaintiff shall file its response to

Defendants’ Objection, if any, not later than fifteen days from the entry of this Order. The Court

will then set a hearing, if appropriate. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ___________, 2007 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2/28/2007

Case 3:06-cv-01332-MJJ Document 41 Filed 02/28/07 Page 2 of 2