Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04135/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04135-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ken Burns
Plaintiff
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated
Defendant

Document Text:

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

KEN BURNS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER &

SMITH INCORPORATED,

Defendant.

 /

No. C-04-4135 MMC

ORDER RE: APRIL 4, 2006 LETTER OF

DAVID ADISHIAN

Before the Court is the letter request of class member David Adishian (“Adishian”),

dated April 4, 2006, by which Adishian requests he be provided a Settlement Claim

Certification Form and the opportunity to submit a late claim in the instant class action. In

support of his request, Adishian states he did not receive notice of the settlement; he also

submits copies of documents suggesting that, at the end of 2005, mail delivery problems

existed in Los Angeles, where his post office box is located.

Under certain circumstances, the district court has the “discretion to grant late

claims.” See In re Gypsum Antitrust Cases, 565 F.2d 1123, 1128 (9th Cir. 1977). In

exercising such discretion, the court should consider whether “there was ‘excusable

neglect’ or good cause for the belated request such that Rules 6(b)(2) or 60(b)(1) [of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] are implicated.” See Silber v. Mabon, 18 F.3d 1449,

Case 3:04-cv-04135-MMC Document 46 Filed 04/11/06 Page 1 of 2
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

 Service on counsel may be accomplished by (1) mailing a copy of the motion to

plaintiffs’ counsel, H. Tim Hoffman, Hoffman & Lazear, 180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1550 

Oakland, CA 94612, and defendant’s counsel, Malcolm Heinicke, Munger Tolles & Olson

LLP, 560 Mission Street, 27th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105-2907, and (2) filing a

document stating under penalty of perjury the fact and date of such mailing.

2

1455 (9th Cir. 1994); see also In re Crazy Eddie Securities Litigation, 906 F. Supp. 840,

846 (E.D.N.Y. 1995) (holding failure of class member to submit timely claim because of

lack of notice may constitute excusable neglect justifying untimely submission).

The Court does not act on the basis of informal letters, however. If Adishian wishes

to pursue this matter further, he shall file with the Court, and serve on counsel,1 a motion

for leave to file a late claim, supported by a declaration attesting, under penalty of perjury,

(1) whether he received the notice of settlement mailed to class members; (2) if so, when

he received such notice; (3) if not, when and how he first learned of the settlement; (4)

when and how he attempted to obtain a Settlement Claim Certification Form; and (5) any

other evidence he wishes to bring to the Court’s attention.

If Adishian files and serves such motion, the parties shall file and serve opposition to

the motion within fourteen days of their receipt thereof. Adishian may file a reply within

seven days of his receipt of the parties’ opposition(s). The matter will be taken under

submission at that time and will be decided without oral argument, unless the Court, after

reviewing the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, determines that oral

argument would assist the Court.

The Clerk shall serve a copy of this order on Adishian by fax and by mail.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 11, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-04135-MMC Document 46 Filed 04/11/06 Page 2 of 2