Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01280/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01280-13/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
AGK Sierra de Montserrat, L.P.
Plaintiff
Comerica Bank
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AGK SIERRA DE MONTSERRAT, L.P.,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMERICA BANK,

Defendant.

No. 2:15-cv-01280-DAD-SCR

ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO FILE 

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

The court issues this order as a result of its review of plaintiff’s pending motion for 

attorneys’ fees and costs, defendant’s opposition to that motion, and plaintiff’s reply thereto. 

(Doc. Nos. 139, 146, 147.) Defendant contends that plaintiff’s motion was not timely filed. 

(Doc. No. 146 at 8–9.) Plaintiff has not addressed whether: (1) if the motion was not timely 

filed, they are seeking an extension of time to so move pursuant to Rule 6(b) of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure; and (2) whether the delay in the filing of its Rule 54 motion was a result of 

“excusable neglect.” See El-Said v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, No. 8:19-cv-02426-JLS-JDE, 2023 

WL 3551959, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2023) (citing Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick 

Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993)). Additionally, the court requires additional 

briefing addressing whether performance of the Assignment of Declarant Rights (“ADR”), which 

the court has already found was breached by defendant, was an express condition of the parties’

Purchase and Sale Agreement which includes an attorneys’ fee provision. (See Doc. No. 118 at 

Case 2:15-cv-01280-DAD-SCR Document 149 Filed 01/17/25 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

2

81) (“Because Comerica has refused to indemnify AGK for its losses and costs incurred in its 

defense in both the Kincade and Murphy Actions, as well as AGK’s losses and costs incurred in 

enforcing the indemnity paragraph in this action, the court thus concludes that Comerica has 

breached the final ADR.”)

Accordingly, the parties are directed to file simultaneous supplemental briefing, including 

supporting legal authority, by January 27, 2025, addressing the following issues:

1. Whether, should the court determine that plaintiff’s motion is not timely, that 

untimeliness was a result of “excusable neglect;” and

2. Whether performance of the Assignment of Declarant Rights was an express 

condition of the Purchase and Sale Agreement.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 16, 2025 

DALE A. DROZD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-01280-DAD-SCR Document 149 Filed 01/17/25 Page 2 of 2