Opinion ID: 2763094
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: USCIS’s Untimely Pleading

Text: We review a district court’s grant or denial of a motion for extension of time for abuse of discretion. 42 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) allows the district court to grant a party’s motion to file an untimely pleading on a showing of good cause and “if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect.” 43 We have said that “‘excusable neglect’ under Rule 6(b) is a somewhat ‘elastic concept’ and is not limited strictly to omissions caused by circumstances beyond the control of the movant.” 44 In evaluating a party’s claim of excusable neglect, the district court may consider the danger of prejudice to the opposing party, the length and impact of the delay, the reason for the delay, and the moving party’s good faith. 45 The district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing USCIS to file an untimely opposition to DaSilva’s revised motion for attorneys fees. The government mistakenly and in good faith believed that DaSilva’s second motion for FOIA fees was merely supplemental to the first and could not be opposed. When alerted to its misunderstanding, the government immediately 41 Cf. La. Power & Light Co. v. Kellstrom, 50 F.3d 319, 336 (5th Cir. 1995) (holding that refusing to award fees for costs litigation when the prevailing party “recovered only part of the costs and fees it requested . . . fell well within the district court’s proper exercise of its discretion”). 42 See Geiserman v. MacDonald, 893 F.2d 787, 793 (5th Cir. 1990); see also McCarty v. Thaler, 376 F. App’x 442, 443 (5th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (unpublished) (“The permissive language of Rule 6(b) shows that any grant of an extension of time for when an act must be done falls to the district court’s discretion.”). 43 FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b)(1)(B). 44 Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 392 (1993). 45 See Adams v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Conn., 465 F.3d 156, 168 (5th Cir. 2006). 13 Case: 14-30296 Document: 00512876525 Page: 14 Date Filed: 12/19/2014 No. 14-30296 requested a brief extension of time and filed its memorandum in opposition within three days. This untimely filing resulted in a delay of only six business days to the consideration of DaSilva’s motion. Moreover, DaSilva was not prejudiced by the government’s untimely opposition. Considering that the district court had sua sponte questioned several of Counsel’s original timesheet entries, the court’s close scrutiny of the revised timesheet would have occurred even without the government’s untimely opposition. DaSilva’s entire claim of prejudice rests on the alleged ex parte communication between counsel for USCIS and the district court’s law clerk. This contact was purely administrative, however, and does not qualify as a proscribed ex parte communication. 46 Given the government’s good faith misunderstanding, the minimal delay, and the lack of prejudice to DaSilva, the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the government’s motion.