1

09

- 27 18

- cv J a n u s C a p ita l M g m t. L L C v . H o w a rd V o g e l R e tirem e n t P la n , et a l. UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SE CO ND CI RC UI T 

### SU MM AR

Y O RD ER

R U LI NGS BY S UM M ARY ORDE R DO NOT HAVE PR E CE DE NT I AL E FF E CT . CI T AT I ON TO A S UM M ARY OR D E R F I L E D ON OR A F T E R J A N U A R Y 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S P E R M I T T E D A N D I S G OV E R N E D B Y F E D E R A L R U L E OF A PPELLA TE PRO C EDU R E 32 . 1 AN D TH I S C O U R T’ S LO C A L RUL E 3 2 . 1. 1. W H EN C I TI N G A S U M M A R Y O R D ER I N A D OC U M E N T F I L E D WI T H T HI S C OU R T , A P A R T Y M U S T C I T E E I T HE R T HE F E D E R A L A P P E N D I X OR AN E L E CT RONI C DAT ABAS E ( W I T H T HE NO T AT I ON “ S UM M ARY ORDE R” ) . A P ART Y CI T I NG A S UM M ARY O R D ER M U ST SERV E A C O PY O F I T O N AN Y PAR TY N O T REPR ESENTED BY CO U N SEL. 1 At a stated te rm of the United States Court of A ppeals for the Second Circuit, held at the 2 Daniel Patric k Moy nihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pear l Street, in the City of Ne w York, 3 on the 30 day

of June, two thousand ten. th 4 5 PRES ENT: 6 7 RA L PH K . WI NT ER, 8 J OSEPH M. McLAUGHL I N, 9 DEB RA ANN L IVI NGSTON, 10 Circuit Judges

. 11

_______________________________________________ 12 13 I N RE: OXFO RD HEAL TH PLANS, I NC.: 14 15 J ANUS CAPI TAL MANAGEMEN T L L C, 16 17 Claimant-Appellant , 18 v. (09-2718- cv) 19 20 HOWARD VOGEL RETI REMENT PL AN, PBHG GROWTH I I PORTFOL I O, PBH G L ARGE 21 CAP GROW TH PORTFOL I O, PBHG SEL ECT 20 PORTFOL I O, P BH G LARGE CAP GROWTH 22 FUN D, PBHGLARGE CAP 20 FUN D, PUBL I C EMPL OYEES RETI REMENT ASSOCI ATI ON 23 OF COL ORADO, 24 25 Le ad Plain tif fs , 26 27 METRO SERVI CES, I NC., et al., 28 29 Plain tif fs ,Pur su ant t o th is C ourt ’s or de r o f M arc h 8 , 2 01 0, g ra nti ngL e a d Pl a int if

fs ’ m oti on

to 1 remove their designation as appe llees, there are no appellee s in this appeal. SeeOrde r, Mar . 8, 2010 (No. 09-2718- cv). 2 1 OXF ORD HEAL TH PLANS, I NC

. , STEPHEN F. WI GGI NS, WI L L IAM M. SUL L IVAN, 2 J E F F R E Y H

. B O Y D , A N D R E W B

. C A S S ID Y , R O B E R T M

. S M O LE R , D A V ID AF IN K E L, 3 BRE NDAN R . S HAN AHAN, R OBER T B. M I L L I GAN , J R

. , J AM ES B. AD AM S ON, FRE D F. 4 N A Z E M , T H O M A S AS C U LLY , B EN J A M INM

. S A F E R S T E IN , J O HNP

. D R IS C O LL, D A V ID 5 B. SN O W, JR. , JA Y L

. SI LV E RS T E I N , T H O M A S T RA V E RS , M A RC IAJ. RA DOSEVI CH, 6 PAULRI CKER, J EANNE WI SNI EWS KI , KEVI N R. HI L L , FRANK

MEDI CI , ALAN 7 SOKOL OW, AL FRED L . KOPI T, KPMG PEAT MARWI CK L L P, 8 9 De fe nd an ts

. 10

______________________________________________ 11 12 FOR CLAI MANT-A PPEL LANT: M A RSH A LL R. K I NG , Gib so n Dunn & Crutc he r L L P, 13 New Y ork, NY; Mark A. Perry , Gibson Dunn & 14 Crutcher L L P, W ashing ton, D.C., of counsel

. 15 Appea l from a judg ment of the United States District Court for the Southern D istrict of New 16 York (Seibe l, J. ). 17 UPON DUE CONSI DERATI ON, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJ UD GE D, and DECREED 18 that the judg ment of the district cour t be AF FI RMED. 19 Claimant-Appellant Janus Capital Manag ement L L C (“Janus”) appea ls f rom a J une 3, 2009 20 order of t he United States District Court for the Southern D istrict of NewYork (Seibe l, J. ) allowing 21 a dis tr ibu tio n o f c e rt a in f

un ds fr om a

c la ss a c tio n s e ttl e me nt f

un d b ut, in r e le va

nt p art , d e c lin ingto 22 approve the dist ri bution of funds to parties, like Janus, whose claims we re untimely filed. The

1 23 district court had pr eviously reje cted a ll so-called “ late-submitted claims” to the settlement in an ora l 24 decision on May 7, 2009. J anus conte nds on appea l that t h e district cour t’s decision to exclude 25 Janu s’ s c la im f

ro m th e dis tr ibutio n c on sti tut e d an a bu se of dis c re tio n. We a ssume fa mil iari ty wi th 26 the re maining f

acts a nd proce dural history

of the c ase a

nd with the issues prese nted for r eview. 27 “ [A] di str ic t c ourt ov e rs e e ing[a] s e ttl e me nt d istri bu ti on ha s inhe re nt p ow e r t o a c c e pt l ate3 1 claims despite [t he] c ontrary terms of [an] ag ree ment” amongthe par ties. In re Agent Orange Prod. 2 Liab. L itig. , 821 F.2d 139, 145 (2d Cir. 1987) (de scribingthe holding of Zie nts v . La Mo rte , 459 F.2d 3 628 (2d Cir. 1972)), supersede d in part by statute as noted in SEC v. TheStreet.com , 273 F.3d 222, 4 233 n.11 (2d Cir. 2001). Pursuant to Zie nts , a dis tr ic t c ourt

e nte rt a ini nga

late -s ub mitte d c la im t o 5 a settlement should examine the equities to determine whe ther to allow the c laim. Se eZie nts , 459 6 F .2 d at 63 0- 31 . In th e ana log ou s c onte xt of de te rm ini ng whe th er a

pa rt y ha s sh own “ e xcu sa

ble 7 neg lect” of

a dea dline under a

n applica b l e fe d er al rule, district c ourts make a simil ar “ equitable” 8 deter

mination, “takingacc ount of all rele vant circ umstances surrounding the party ’s” failure to act 9 in a ti me ly ma

nner. Pi on e e r I

nv . S e rv s. Co. v . B ru ns wic k

As so cs. Ltd

. P ’S hip , 507 U.S. 380, 395 10 (1993). The fac tors a district cour t should consider include: 11 the dang er of prejudice . . ., the leng th of the delay and its potential impact on judicial 12 pr oc e e din g s, the re a so n f or the de lay , inc lud ing wh e the r it wa s w ith in t he re a so na

ble 13 control of the mova nt, and whethe r the movant a cted in g ood faith. 14 Id. In balanc ing the equities pursuant to Zie nts , it was proper for the district c ourt in this case to look 15 to the Pioneer

fac tors. See, e .g. , I

n r e Craz y E d die Sec . Liti

g. , 906 F. Supp. 840, 844 (E.D.N .Y. 16 1995). 17 We h ave re c ognize d in the pa st t hat, whil e the re is “ an in sti tut ion a lize d b ut l imi te d f le xibil ity 18 at t he marg in with respe ct t o rig hts lost beca use t hey have been slept on,” the leg al sy stem relies on 19 deadlines to func tion, and that “eve ry missed deadline” should not become “ the occas i o n for the 20 embar

kation on extensive trial a

n d a p pellate litigation to determine the e quities of enfor cingthe bar .” 21 Silivanch v. Cele brity Cruises, Inc. , 333 F.3d 355, 367-68 (2d Cir. 2003). There fore , we take a “ hard 22 line” whe n applying the P io n e er fa c tor s, and , b e c a

us e in t he or din ary

c a se the re wi ll b e little 23 prejudice or disruption cause d by allowinga late- submitt ed cla im, we foc us o u r analy sis on the4 1 asser

ted re ason for

the claimant’ s delay , “including whether it wa s within the rea sonable c ontrol of 2 th e [c la im ant].” In re Enron Corp. , 419 F.3d 115, 122 ( 2d Cir. 2005) (interna l quotation marks 3 omi t t ed ). We revie w the district cour t’s decision to allow or disallow a late-submitted claim for 4 abuse of

discretion. See, e .g. , id. at 124 (re viewingfor a buse of discr etion bankruptc y court’s 5 application of the Pioneer fa c tor s) ; cf. Manhattan-W ard, Inc. v . Grinnell Corp. , 490 F.2d 1183, 1186 6 (2d Cir. 1974) (pe r curiam) (reviewing for abuse of discretion dis trict court’ s g rant of a motion for 7 extension of tim e under Fe d. R. Civ. P . 6(b))

. 8 We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discre tion in declining to allow Janus’s 9 late-submitted claim. F irst, the district court did not, as J anus asse rts, comm it lega l error by 10 c on sid e ri ngits e lf ine xtri c a bly bo un d to a

pp ly the c ourt ’s e arl ie r d e a dli ne fo r t he fili ng of c la ims

. 11 Indeed, not only

did the court d i s cu s s the application of the Pioneer fa c tor s, the c ourt

e xpre ssl y 12 state d th at it ha d “ the po we r to va ry the te rm s o f a

se ttl e me nt a g re e me nt f

or e qu ita ble c on sid e ra

tio ns ” 13 and, in consider ing late-filed c laims, that it “need[ed] to consider the excu s able neg lect 14 standard . . . .” May 7, 2009 Hg

. Tr. at 17. The district c ourt’s discussion of the importance of the 15 prior dea dline was, a s discussed above , entirely proper . 16 We also find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s weig hing of the Pioneer

fa c tor s. 1 7 I twa s en t i re l y

wi th i nJ an u s ’s “r ea s o n ab l e co n tro l ” t o fi l e a t i m el y cl ai m wi th re s p ec t t o i t s h o l d i n gs 18 in the Be rg er f

unds. Enron , 4 19 F .3 d at 12 2. Janu s’ s a g e nt, State Str e e t B ank and Tr us t Co . ( “ State 19 Street”) , beca

me custodian of the Be rg er funds in 2001, Sanders De cl. ¶ 16, a nd J anus provides no 20 explanation why , followingthis event , S t ate Stree t did not seek to standardize the tra ding r ecor ds 21 of

the B e rg e r f

un ds wi th i ts o wn

a c c ounti ngsy ste m. Mor e ov e r, Janu s con c e de s that Stat e Str e e t he ld 22 all the information r ega rdingthe B erg er f unds’ tradingrec ords on microfic he at the time the5 1 settlement was a

nnoun c e d , a

n d th e r e f o r e c o u ld have discove red the Be rg er f unds’ holdings in Oxford 2 Hea lth Pl ans sec urities in time to file a claim. Id. ¶ 19. F inally , the district court did not c lear ly err 3 in c on c lud ingthat a llo wi nglate -s ub mitte d c la ims wo uld c a us e at lea st som e pr e

jud ic e to c la ima

nts 4 who had timely

filed by diminis hing those claimants’ pr o rata share of the settlement funds. See May 5 7, 2009 Hg . Tr. at 18. 6 We have c onsidered Janus’s re maining a rgument s and we conclude that they are without 7 merit. For

the fore g oing r easons, the judg ment of the district cour t is AFF I RMED. 8 F OR TH E CO UR T: 9 Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk 10