From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Silberstein v. I.R.S

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Feb 14, 1994
16 F.3d 858 (8th Cir. 1994)

Summary

authorizing federal district courts to overlook violations of the local rules

Summary of this case from Watson v. Sw. Ark. Elec. Coop. Corp.

Opinion

No. 93-2629.

Submitted January 11, 1994.

Decided February 14, 1994.

Counsel who represented the appellant was Edgar E. Lim of St. Louis, MO.

Counsel who represented the appellee was Gary R. Allen of the Department of Justice, Washington, DC.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

Before BEAM, Circuit Judge, WELLFORD, Senior Circuit Judge, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.

The HONORABLE HARRY W. WELLFORD, Senior Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting by designation.


Appellants contend that the district court abused its discretion by ruling on a motion for summary judgement filed forty-one days rather than forty-five days prior to the date scheduled for trial. We disagree and affirm.

Michael J. Silberstein and Laraine Silberstein sought a tax refund. The district court originally set the matter for trial on March 1, 1993. The court issued a subsequent scheduling order establishing a pretrial conference on March 5, 1993, in preparation for trial "on the three week docket commencing March 1, 1993."

The Silbersteins had been served with a request for admissions to which they had failed to respond for some five months after the thirty-day deadline established by Fed.R.Civ.P. 36. They attempted to respond out of time on January 11, 1993. However, the district court, on January 15, overruled the motion for leave to respond and, instead, sustained the government's motion to deem the request admitted. Four days later, on January 19, 1993, the government filed its motion for summary judgment. The summary judgment motion was granted on March 3, 1993.

Appellants filed a "Motion to Set Aside" which the district court properly construed as a timely Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). The motion was overruled and the Silbersteins' appeal.

Appellants do not take issue with the rulings of the district court on the merits of the dispute. Instead, they invoke a purported procedural violation of Local Rule 7(H).

Rule 7(H), adopted by the district court under the authority granted by 28 U.S.C. § 2071(a) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 83, provides that: "motions for summary judgment or to dismiss may not be filed later than forty-five (45) days prior to the trial date." Such local rules, as appellants correctly contend, are binding on the parties. See, e.g., Braxton v. Bi-State Dev. Agency, 728 F.2d 1105 (8th Cir. 1984).

Our problems with appellants' contentions are twofold. First, the trial court has ample authority to amend the trial date as it did in this case. A March 5 pretrial conference signals that the trial will not commence before that date. Thus, the summary judgment motion was timely. Second, the district court has considerable leeway in the application of its local rules. See Morgan Distributing Co. v. Unidynamic Corp., 868 F.2d 992, 996 (8th Cir. 1989). Indeed, "[i]t is for the district court to determine what departures from its rules may be overlooked." Braxton, 728 F.2d at 1107 (citation omitted). While we would not hesitate to find abuse of discretion in the application of a local procedural rule in an appropriate case, this is not such a situation.

An examination of the record reveals that at least one of the facts deemed admitted on January 15 was crucial to the success of the summary judgment request. Appellants were contesting this factual matter as late as January 11. Therefore, the district court was well within its discretion in considering the motion filed four days after resolution of this dispute, even if it considered the March 1 trial date binding, which was clearly not the case.

Accordingly, the district court correctly considered the dispositive motion. The judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

Silberstein v. I.R.S

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Feb 14, 1994
16 F.3d 858 (8th Cir. 1994)

authorizing federal district courts to overlook violations of the local rules

Summary of this case from Watson v. Sw. Ark. Elec. Coop. Corp.

authorizing federal district courts to overlook violations of their local rules

Summary of this case from Foster Cable Servs., Inc. v. Deville

stating that a "district court has considerable leeway in the application of its local rules . . . [and may] determine what departures from its rules may be overlooked"

Summary of this case from Moss v. Texarkana Ark. Sch. Dist.

stating a "district court has considerable leeway in application of its local rules"

Summary of this case from In re Search of the Premises of Carl Ray Wilson
Case details for

Silberstein v. I.R.S

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL J. SILBERSTEIN; LARAINE SILBERSTEIN, APPELLANTS, v. INTERNAL…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

Date published: Feb 14, 1994

Citations

16 F.3d 858 (8th Cir. 1994)

Citing Cases

United States v. Lytle

Lytle is correct, however, in his argument that the United States failed to comply with the requirements of…

Shaw v. Kaemingk

While the failure to comply with a local rule can lead to the dismissal of a case, the Eighth Circuit has…