Opinion ID: 688303
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Expeditious Resolution of Litigation

Text: 12 Blas's attorney argued before the district court and on appeal that the delay was reasonable based on his mistaken belief that he did not need to inform the court of this court's decision in the superior court case because he had sought Supreme Court review of that decision. In addition, he believed that he did not need to inform the court when he learned certiorari had been denied because he only received a letter from the clerk of the Supreme Court rather than a copy of the order denying certiorari. The district court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting these contentions. See In re Eisen, 31 F.3d at 1451-52. The district court's order clearly required Blas to inform the court immediately upon the issuance of an Opinion by the Ninth Circuit. 1 Moreover, almost a year and a half elapsed between the time Blas learned that certiorari had been denied and the district court issued the an order to show cause. Given these circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion by finding unreasonable delay by Blas. See id. 13