Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-03359/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-03359-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

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

FATEMAH AZIZIAN, et al.,

Plaintiffs.

 v.

FEDERATED DEPARTMENT STORES, et al., 

Defendants. _______________________________________

No. C 03-3359 SBA

CLASS ACTION 

ORDER

[Docket Nos. 661, 662] 

This matter comes before the Court on the Coordinated Objectors' Motion for Enlargement of

Time [Docket No. 661] and the Coordinated Objectors' Motion for Leave to File Reply to Class

Plaintiffs' Response [Docket No. 662]. The Motion for Enlargement of Time and the Motion for Leave

to File Reply are both directed toward the Court's Order dated June 5, 2006, which noted that the

Coordinated Objectors' Objections to the Special Master's May 18, 2006 Report and Recommendation

were untimely. The Coordinated Objectors are correct that the Court's April 10, 2006 Order did not

make clear whether the Court intended for holidays and weekends to be included in the ten-day deadline

for filing objections to the Special Master's Report and Recommendations. As such, the Court finds that

the Coordinated Objectors' decision to file their Objections on June 1, 2006, rather than May 28, 2006,

was due to excusable neglect. Due to the ambiguity that was created by the discrepancy between the

Court's April 10, 2006 Order and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6, the Coordinated Objectors'

Objections will be considered by the Court. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Motion for Enlargement of Time [Docket No. 661] and

the Motion for Leave to File Reply [Docket No. 662] are DENIED AS MOOT. The Coordinated

Objectors' Objections [Docket No. 656] and Plaintiffs' Response [Docket No. 659] are hereby taken

Case 4:03-cv-03359-SBA Document 663 Filed 06/12/06 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 submission. No further briefing on this issue is authorized without leave of Court. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the April 10, 2006 Order is AMENDED to clarify that, with

respect to any future reports submitted by the Special Master, the parties are to file objections within

ten (10) days of the report, with weekends and holidays excluded from the computation, as provided by

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 Dated: 6/12/06 SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:03-cv-03359-SBA Document 663 Filed 06/12/06 Page 2 of 2