Kyle v. Campbell Soup Co

7 Citing briefs

  1. Brandi Garris et al v. City of Los Angeles

    REPLY IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class 38

    Filed January 8, 2018

    Where the deadline for a filing is unambiguous, an attorney's neglect is typically inexcusable. Eisenberg v. Citibank N.A., No. 213CV01814CASJPRX, 2017 WL 532936, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2017) (citing Kyle v. Campbell Soup Co., 28 F.3d 928, 931 (9th Cir. 1994), as amended on denial of reh'g (Apr. 8, 1994) (district court abused its discretion by determining that attorney's failure to obey unambiguous scheduling rule was excusable); see also Hernandez v. Winstar Properties, Inc., No. 216CV04697ODWKSX, 2017 WL 3741258, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2017) (absent a “dramatic ambiguity” in the deadline, the defendants’ failure to meet the Court’s deadline is inexcusable). Plaintiffs reluctantly point out that there is also evidence of bad faith on the part of the City. Although the City's belief that the Opposition was due on January 2, 2018, was inaccurate and negligent, it may have been in good faith.

  2. Berry v. Hawaiian Express Ser, et al

    MEMORANDUM in Opposition re MOTION for Attorney Fees and Opposition to Request for Taxable Costs

    Filed April 27, 2006

    Case 1:03-cv-00385-DAE-LEK Document 948 Filed 04/27/2006 Page 13 of 23 2 Mr. Berry also firmly believes that the delay was strategic in order to prejudice Mr. Berry and cause piecemeal settlements with the non-PCT defendants and to exact leverage regarding certain issues. 9 Kyle v. Campbell Soup Co., 28 F.3d 928, 931 (9th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). In the October 15 telephone conference, counsel for Radio City candidly admitted that the reason he had failed to file within the 14-day limit was that he had overlooked or forgotten about Rule 54(d)(2)(B).

  3. Berry v. Hawaiian Express Ser, et al

    MEMORANDUM in Opposition re MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs

    Filed April 27, 2006

    It is well settled that inadvertence, ignorance of the rules, or mistakes construing the rules do not usually constitute excusable neglect. Kyle v. Campbell Soup Co., 28 F.3d 928, 931 (9th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). In the October 15 telephone conference, counsel for Radio City candidly admitted that the reason he had failed to file Case 1:03-cv-00385-DAE-LEK Document 947 Filed 04/27/2006 Page 18 of 30 13 within the 14-day limit was that he had overlooked or forgotten about Rule 54(d)(2)(B).

  4. MDL No. 1917 In Re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation

    RESPONSE

    Filed July 28, 2014

    And, in cases regarding other missed deadlines, the Ninth Circuit has held inexcusable delays as short as one day. See, e.g., Clark v. H.R. Textron, Inc., 66 F.3d 334, at *1-2 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming denial to enlarge time one day after the deadline and with immediate notice to opposing counsel); see also Kyle v. Campbell Soup Co., 28 F.3d 928, 929 (9th Cir. 1994) (affirming denial to extend deadline two days after the deadline). The cases Sharp cites to support its contention that its delay should be excused as “de minimis” are unavailing.

  5. MDL No. 1917 In Re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation

    RESPONSE

    Filed July 28, 2014

    And, in cases regarding other missed deadlines, the Ninth Circuit has held inexcusable delays as short as one day. See, e.g., Clark v. H.R. Textron, Inc., 66 F.3d 334, at *1-2 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming denial to enlarge time one day after the deadline and with immediate notice to opposing counsel); see also Kyle v. Campbell Soup Co., 28 F.3d 928, 929 (9th Cir. 1994) (affirming denial to extend deadline two days after the deadline). 3.

  6. Soilworks LLC v Midwest Industrial Supply Inc

    RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION for for Order to Include "Synthetic Organic Dust Control" as part of "Midwest's Marks"

    Filed April 14, 2008

    “It is well settled that ‘inadvertence, ignorance of the rules, or mistakes construing the rules do not usually constitute excusable neglect.’” Reynolds v. Wagner, 121 F.3d 716 at *2 (9th Cir. 1997); See also Kyle v. Campbell Soup Co., 28 F.3d 928, 931 (9th Cir. 1994); See also Pioneer Inv. Servs.

  7. Institute for Policy Studies v. United States Central Intelligence Agency

    MOTION for Reconsideration

    Filed December 28, 2007

    vil Procedure); Walter v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield United of Wisc., 181 F.3d 1198, 1201-02 (11th Cir. 1999) (where motion to set aside default judgment was untimely, secretary’s clerical error in failing to record deadline was excusable neglect.); Tran v. Captain Glyn. Inc., 909 F. Supp. 727, 731 (D. Hawaii 1995) (permitting litigant to file late cross-motion for summary judgment and opposition to opponent's motion for summary judgment); see also Hetzel v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 50 F.3d 360, 367 (5th Cir. 1995) (district court did not err in accepting motion for summary judgment one day late); cf. Crutcher v. Coleman, 205 F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. Kan 2001) (allowing defendant to file answer six months after original deadline, notwithstanding her failure to provide "an adequate reason[,]" where failure caused no prejudice to the plaintiff); but see e.g. Lowry v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 211 F.3d 457, 464 (8th Cir. 2000) (holding misapplication of procedural rules was not excusable neglect); Kyle v. Campbell Soup Co., 28 F.3d 928, 931-32 (9th Cir. 1994) (determining that an attorney’s mistake calculating the time to file a motion for attorney’s fees did not amount to excusable neglect); Davidson v. Keenan, 740 F.2d 129, 132 (2d Cir. 1984) (upholding district court’s refusal to accept untimely opposition to motion to dismiss where proffered excuse was “inadvertence or oversight of counsel”)