Opinion ID: 724016
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Time For Filing Motion for Attorney's Fees

Text: 38 CIHD challenges the district court's denial of its motion to extend the time for the filing of a motion for attorney's fees. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2)(A) and (B), as amended effective December 1, 1993, require a claim for attorney's fees to be made by motion filed and served no later than 14 days after entry of judgment; a court can by order provide a different deadline. Although CIHD moved the court for an extension of time pursuant to Rule 54(d) itself, the district court noted that CIHD appeared to be seeking a retroactive extension of time, since the 14-day deadline had already expired. The court properly treated the motion as one under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) to allow filing after the expiration of the deadline because the failure to timely file was the result of excusable neglect. Because Rule 6(b) commits the question to the court's discretion, we review a decision under Rule 6(b) for abuse of discretion. Kyle v. Campbell Soup Co., 28 F.3d 928, 930 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 867, 115 S.Ct. 185, 130 L.Ed.2d 119 (1994). 39 Judgment below was rendered on April 7, 1995 and entered on April 10, 1995. CIHD's counsel filed a petition seeking an award of attorney's fees on April 28, 1995. On May 9, 1995, CIHD filed a motion to extend the time for the filing of its petition. In the affidavit in support of that motion, Laird Lucas, one of CIHD's attorneys, stated that the motion was filed late because he and his co-counsel had been unaware of the relevant changes in the federal and local rules. 40 The district court denied appellee's motion. The court ruled that appellee was requesting relief based solely on counsel's unfamiliarity with the amended Local and Federal Rules and held that this did not constitute excusable neglect. The court quoted from the Supreme Court opinion in Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Limited Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 113 S.Ct. 1489, 123 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993), which stated that inadvertence, ignorance of the rules, or mistakes construing the rules do not usually constitute 'excusable' neglect. Id. at 392, 113 S.Ct. at 1496. The district court noted that [i]f compelling circumstances had been presented such as illness, injury or death of counsel, or members of his family, or fire, flood, vandalism or destruction of counsel's law office or word processing equipment, the Court would be more inclined to seriously consider the motion for an extension of time. 41 On May 23, 1995, CIHD filed a motion to reconsider with an accompanying affidavit by Lucas. Lucas declared that he had undergone outpatient surgery on April 20, 1995 and was confined to bed rest through April 22, 1995. He also declared that he was unable to devote any substantial time to preparing the fee application from April 13, 1995 to April 16, 1995 because his wife's illness with flu and strep throat required him to care for his two children during that period. The court denied the motion, finding that the sole reason for Plaintiff's failure to timely file the Petition was unfamiliarity with the Local Rules in effect at that time. The court also noted that CIHD was also represented by another capable and competent attorney who was lead trial counsel and presumably available to assist during the time in question. 42 CIHD argues, essentially, that the court abused its discretion by not applying the proper legal standard for excusable neglect, which it argues is set forth in Pioneer, 4 where the Court concluded that the question is at bottom an equitable one, taking account of all relevant circumstances surrounding the party's omission. These include ... the danger of prejudice to the [other party], the length of delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant, and whether the movant acted in good faith. 507 U.S. at 395, 113 S.Ct. at 1498. 43 The district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that CIHD's counsel's ignorance of the amended procedural requirements for the filing of a request for attorney's fees was not excusable neglect. Although the court did not discuss the factors set forth in Pioneer, it did follow this court's decision in Kyle. In that case, the court interpreted Pioneer as not changing the general rule that a mistake of law does not constitute excusable neglect. 28 F.3d at 932. The court held that in the absence of a persuasive justification for ... misconstruction of nonambiguous rules there was no basis for deviating from the general rule. Id. at 931-32. The court in Kyle therefore reversed, as an abuse of discretion, a district court's decision to enlarge time for filing a petition for attorney's fees on the basis that such a misconstruction was excusable neglect. If misconstruction of a nonambiguous rule cannot, under Ninth Circuit precedent, constitute excusable neglect to justify an extension of time, it clearly would have been abuse of discretion for the district court in this case to hold that ignorance of an amendment to a rule could constitute excusable neglect. As a result, under this court's interpretation of Pioneer in Kyle, there was no need for the court to consider expressly the equitable factors listed in Pioneer. 5