Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00533/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00533-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Contract Dispute

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FUNCAT LEISURE CRAFT, INC., and ) 

SUB SEA SYSTEMS, INC., ) 

) 2:06-cv-0533-GEB-GGH

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) ORDER

)

JOHNSON OUTDOORS INC., )

)

Defendant. )

 )

On March 1, 2007, Defendant filed a motion for

reconsideration of this Court’s February 28, 2007 Order and an ex

parte application for an order shortening time on its motion and a

stay of its discovery obligations. (Def.’s Mot. for Recons. at 1:28,

2:1-2; Def.’s Ex Parte Application at 1:23-27.) This Court’s February

28, 2007 Order denied Defendant’s request for reconsideration of the

Magistrate Judge’s January 29, 2007 Order since the request was moot

because the date on which Defendant was obliged to comply with

Plaintiffs’ discovery requests had passed. (See Judge Hollow’s Feb.

5, 2007 Order at 1:17-19, where he determined that “Defendant[] shall

have twenty days to respond to [P]laintiffs’ December 4, 2006, motion

to compel discovery, unless otherwise stipulated by the parties.”)

Case 2:06-cv-00533-GEB-GGH Document 65 Filed 03/06/07 Page 1 of 3
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

 Flores v. Emerich & Fike, 2006 2536615 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 1

2006), cited by Defendant in its Motion, is not to the contrary. The

order at issue in that case stated that the “amended complaint shall

be filed within fifteen (15) days following service of this decision.” 

(Judge Wanger’s February 21, 2006 Order Granting Motion to Strike and

Motion to Dismiss at 43:5-6.) (emphasis added). 

2

Defendant argues that its original request for

reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s January 29, 2007 Order was

not moot because “Defendant incorrectly stated that its discovery

responses were due on February 26, 2007, rather than February 28, 2007

when they were actually due [since] [t]his calculation did not account

for the additional time granted under Fed. Rule of Civ. P. 6(e) given

that the order was served electronically.” (Def.’s Mot. at 2:27-28,

3:1-2.) Plaintiffs oppose the motion, arguing “[i]t is well-settled

that Rule 6(e) applies only to actions that must be taken after a date

of service” and “Defendant’s discovery responses were due twenty days

from February 5, . . . and not the date of service of [the Magistrate

Judge’s] Order.” (Pls.’ Opp’n at 2:20-22.)

“The Rule 6(e) mail provision applies only when a time

period begins with the service of notice or other paper. Rule 6(e)

does not apply to time periods that begin with the filing in court of

a judgment or an order.” 1 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 6.05[3]

(Matthew Bender 3d ed.); see also Moore v. Navarro, 2004 WL 783104, at

*2, n.3 (N.D. Cal. March 31, 2004) (“Rule 6(e) applies only where a

party ‘is required to do some act or take some proceedings within a

prescribed period of time after the service of a notice or other paper

on a party[.]’ [Plaintiff] was ordered to file an amended complaint

within 20 days of the date of the order, not within 20 days of being

served with the order.”). Since Defendant has not satisfied the 1

Case 2:06-cv-00533-GEB-GGH Document 65 Filed 03/06/07 Page 2 of 3
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

standards applicable to its reconsideration motion and its ex parte

application, this motion and application are denied.

Dated: March 5, 2007

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00533-GEB-GGH Document 65 Filed 03/06/07 Page 3 of 3