Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04798/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04798-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 625
Nature of Suit: Drug Related Seizure of Property
Cause of Action: 21:881 Forfeiture Property-Drugs

---

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

$247,052.54, et al., Defendants,

CODY K. DOBBS,

Claimant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C-05-4798 SC

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

TO EXTEND TIME NUNC

PRO TUNC FOR FILING

OPPOSITION TO MOTION

TO LIFT STAY 

I. INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is Plaintiff United States' ("the

Government") Motion to Extend Time, Nunc Pro Tunc, for Filing an

Opposition to Claimant's Motion to Lift Stay and Provide Claimant

with an Opportunity to Reply ("Motion to Extend Time"). See

Docket No. 31. Claimant Cody Dobbs ("Dobbs") objects to the

Government's untimely filing ("Objection"). See Docket. No. 32. 

For the reasons discussed herein, the Court GRANTS the

Government's Motion.

On November 14, 2006, the Court stayed this case pursuant to

Case 3:05-cv-04798-SC Document 33 Filed 06/13/07 Page 1 of 6
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

a stipulation of the parties. See Docket No. 21. On March 30,

2007, Dobbs filed a Motion to Rescind Order Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

§ 981(g) Staying the Proceedings ("Motion to Rescind Stay"), a

Motion for Order Shortening Notice Time to 10 Days to Hear

Claimant's Motion to Rescind Stay of Case, and a Motion for

Summary Judgment. See Docket Nos. 24, 26, 27. The Court denied

the Motion to Shorten Time. See Docket No. 30. Because the Court

did not shorten the time, the hearing on the Motion to Rescind

Stay was set for hearing on May 25, 2007, with the Government's

Opposition Brief to be filed no later than May 4, 2007. 

Due to an error on the part of the Assistant United States

Attorney, the Government failed to file its brief by the May 4

deadline. Kenney Decl. ¶¶ 2-4. In light of this error, the

Government now asks the Court to extend the time for filing an

opposition brief nunc pro tunc.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

The Court may, at its discretion, "upon motion made after the

expiration of the specified period permit the act to be done where

the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect." Fed. R.

Civ. P. 6(b)(2). To determine whether or not the Government's

failure to file was the result of "excusable neglect," the Court

considers four factors: "(1) the danger of prejudice to the nonmoving party, (2) the length of 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

Case 3:05-cv-04798-SC Document 33 Filed 06/13/07 Page 2 of 6
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

v. Andrews, 389 F.3d 853, 855 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (citing

Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Associated Ltd. P'ship, 507

U.S. 380, 395 (1993)).

III. ANALYSIS

First, allowing the Government belatedly to oppose Dobbs's

Motion to Rescind the Stay will not prejudice Dobbs. Dobbs

objects to the Government's Opposition Brief, but does not explain

why he would be prejudiced by the late filing. See Objection. 

Prior to March 30, 2007, when Dobbs filed three motions, this case

had been stayed for nearly five months pending the outcome of the

related criminal case. See Docket No. 21. The Government

asserts, and Dobbs does not dispute, that the trial in the

criminal case was delayed primarily because Dobbs requested

multiple continuances. See Motion to Extend Time at 1-2;

Objection at 3. Dobbs asserts that the delay in the criminal

trial is immaterial because his summary judgment motion will not

affect the criminal trial. Objection at 3. Even if Dobbs is

correct, this goes to whether or not the Court should lift the

stay, not to whether the Court should allow the Government to file

its Opposition Brief after the deadline. The merits of the stay

are not presently before the Court. Dobbs has offered no reason

why he would be prejudiced if the Court allows the Government to

file its brief now. Therefore, this factor favors granting the

Government's Motion to Extend Time.

Second, the Government's untimely filing will not have a

significant impact upon these proceedings. At present, this

Case 3:05-cv-04798-SC Document 33 Filed 06/13/07 Page 3 of 6
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 4

litigation is stayed pending the outcome of a criminal trial which

is not scheduled to start for three more months. As such, the

only judicial proceeding which will be affected by the late filing

is the resolution of Dobbs's Motion to Rescind Stay, which was

originally scheduled for hearing on May 25. If the Government

files its Opposition Brief in accordance with this Order, and

Dobbs timely files a Reply, the total delay in resolving the

Motion to Rescind Stay will be approximately one month. In

litigation that has been pending for a year and a half and stayed

for seven months, such a delay will not impact the proceedings

significantly. Therefore, this factor also favors granting the

Government's Motion to Extend Time.

Third, the Government's delay in filing was the result of Ms.

Kenney's oversight, which, without more detail, would weigh

against granting the Motion to Extend Time. Ms. Kenney offers two

explanations for her failure to properly calendar the deadline for

opposing Dobbs's Motion to Rescind Stay: (1) she was busy with

intensive briefing in another, unrelated, forfeiture case and had

an overwhelming case load; and (2) she was undergoing treatment

for serious illness and injuries in the period leading up to the

deadline and took a significant amount of sick leave. See Kenney

Decl. ¶¶ 2-3. Dobbs correctly notes that Ms. Kenney could have,

and should have, had someone else from the United States

Attorney's office cover her caseload in her absence. Objection at

3. It is for this reason that Courts do not generally consider

involvement in other cases to be excusable neglect. See, e.g.,

Gwaduri v. INS, 362 F.3d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir. 2004) (denying

Case 3:05-cv-04798-SC Document 33 Filed 06/13/07 Page 4 of 6
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 5

Government's motion to file out of time, noting that "the excuse

offered by the government's attorney, that she was busy with other

work and so was unable file a request for such an extension or a

timely motion in opposition, is inadequate."); Pinero Schroeder v.

Fed. Nat'l Mortgage Ass'n, 574 F.2d 1117, 1118 (1st Cir. 1978)

("We do not consider the fact that an attorney is busy on other

matters to fall within the definition of excusable neglect."). 

This is not a per se rule against extending time, however. See

Pincay, 389 F.3d at 860. During this time, Ms. Kenney was also

recovering from extended cancer treatment, participating in

physical therapy for an injured knee, and having vision problems. 

Kenney Decl., ¶ 3. Taken as a whole, the circumstances which led

to the Government's failure to file do not weigh against granting

the Motion to Extend Time.

Finally, the Court has no reason to doubt that the Government

is acting in good faith. The Government's counsel admitted

responsibility for the error, and upon realizing the mistake,

promptly filed the instant motion. See Kenney Decl. ¶ 2. 

Although Dobbs challenges the propriety of the Government's

seizure, he does not challenge the Government's good faith with

respect to the untimely filing. This factor also weighs in favor

of allowing the Government to file its Opposition out of time.

IV. CONCLUSION

Because the Pioneer factors favor a finding of excusable

neglect on the part of the Government, the Court hereby GRANTS the

Government's Motion to Extend Time, Nunc Pro Tunc, for Filing

Case 3:05-cv-04798-SC Document 33 Filed 06/13/07 Page 5 of 6
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 6

Opposition to Motion to Lift Stay. The Court ORDERS the

Government to file its Opposition Brief no later than seven (7)

days following the date of this Order. Dobbs may file a Reply

Brief to the Government's Opposition no later than seven (7) days

following the filing date of the Opposition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 13, 2007

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-04798-SC Document 33 Filed 06/13/07 Page 6 of 6