Skip to main content

It Was Only Four Minutes Late -- Who's Counting? (Note:It Was Three Minutes and the Defendants Are Counting)


When you file a motion for reconsideration, you are already up against gargantuan hurdles.

So you really want to put your best foot forward.

Unless you are late plus your brief is too long:
On October 28, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a timely motion for reconsideration of the Order of Dismissal. (ECF No. 80). The motion exceeded the twenty-page limit and font requirement imposed by our local rules. Plaintiffs had previously sought leave to exceed the twenty-page limit, but this Court had not ruled on the motion prior to the 28-day deadline imposed by Rule 59(e). Because the motion failed to comply with font requirements, I subsequently granted Plaintiffs leave to re-file the motion nunc pro tunc to October 28, 2013, the original filing date. (ECF No. 96). I denied Plaintiffs’ request to exceed the page limits, however. (Id.) Plaintiffs were provided until December 9, 2013 to re-file.

Three minutes after midnight on December 10, 2013, Plaintiffs filed their revised Motion for Reconsideration. (ECF No. 97). The revised Motion for Reconsideration complied with the local rules on font requirements, but exceeded the twenty-page limit by ten lines. Plaintiffs’ counsel subsequently moved the Court to excuse the failure to comply with my prior Order (ECF No. 96), citing a faulty hotel internet connection and the complexity of the issues as the reasons for noncompliance. (ECF No. 100). Defendants moved to strike the Motion for Reconsideration as untimely and  exceeding the allowable page length (ECF No. 102, 108).

Defendants argue that this Court lacks the authority to extend the time for filing a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 59(e), citing to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(2). Defendants, however, concede that the revised motion is, in substance, the same as the original, timely motion filed on October 28, 2013. (ECF No. 113 at 7) (“A review of the second Motion for Reconsideration [DE97] shows that the motion contains many stylistic rather than substantive changes….”).  Moreover, Plaintiffs also moved for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6), which requires that motions be filed “within a reasonable time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c). Even applying the December 10, 2013 filing date, the Motion for Reconsideration is timely under Rule 60(b). While the Motion for Reconsideration was filed four minutes after the deadline I imposed, Defendants will not be prejudiced by the short delay in service of the revised motion, and this matter should be resolved on the merits. I will, however, disregard the last ten lines of the Motion for Reconsideration for failing to comply with my prior Order denying Plaintiffs’ motion to exceed the twenty-page limit.
Whether it's three or four minutes, Judge C did the right thing here.

(But sheesh, way to muck up your motion!)

Comments

  1. Defendant should have settled while motions were pending. The fees on this thing just went way up.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

My Kind of Federal Judge!

Sure we have Scott Rothstein and his lovely Tom James clothier Romina Sifuentes, but Louisiana has ED LA judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr.:
A federal judge from Louisiana who had run up big gambling debts routinely solicited money and gifts from lawyers with cases before his court, Congressional investigators said Tuesday as the House opened impeachment hearings in the judge’s case. The judge, G. Thomas Porteous Jr. of Federal District Court, had more than $150,000 in credit card debt by 2000, mostly for cash advances spent in casinos, investigators said. Judge Porteous’s requests for cash became so frequent that one New Orleans lawyer said he started trying to dodge the judge.“He began to use excuses that he needed it for tuition, he needed it for living expenses,” the lawyer, Robert Creely, told a House Judiciary Committee task force. “I would avoid him until I couldn’t avoid him anymore.”
Mr. Creely said he and his law partner, Jacob Amato, gave Judge Porteous an estimated $20,000 o…

Honoring Richard C. Seavey

I drank a shit-ton of bourbon last night. Enough to float a battleship.

My head hurts. But not as much as my heart.

We lost another lawyer over the weekend. Not someone who will receive facebook accolades and other public claims of friendship and statements that he shaped and changed lives and careers. Just a guy who did the best he could with what he had. Every day. And he did very, very well to be the best person he could be. 
Richard Seavey was a profoundly private person. In his 49 years, he walked through more than his share of trials and tribulations, mostly asking for no help, leaning on no one. 

Richard was a fantastic lawyer. He could try a case. He could "litigate" a case. He could mediate and settle a case. He was nuanced. He bent but never broke. The blustery Miami lawyer never scared him. To the contrary, he found humor in it, studying it like a science project. Richard never got too high or too low. He was good at lawyering, but you got the f…

First Carnival Triumph Lawsuit on File!

It was filed in the SD FL (of course) and is pending before Judge Graham.

Check it out here.

The lawyer on the pleading is Marcus R. Spagnoletti.