Tamalpais Union High School District v. W.

Filing 69

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: Docket No. 63 . Show Cause Response due by 12/28/2018.Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 12/6/2018. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/6/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

TAMALPAIS UNION HIGH SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Plaintiff,

9

Case No. 16-cv-04350-HSG
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Re: Dkt. No. 63

v.
10
11

D. W.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendant.
12
13

Pending before the Court is Defendant D.W.’s motion for attorney’s fees under the

14

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3). See Dkt. No. 63.

15

On September 21, 2017, the Court denied the parties’ cross-motions for summary

16

judgment seeking review of the administrative law judge’s decision and affirmed the ALJ’s

17

decision in its entirety. See Dkt. No. 55 at 28. The Clerk entered judgment that same day. See

18

Dkt. No. 56.

19

D.W. brought a motion for attorney’s fees on February 27, 2018, more than five months

20

after the entry of judgment. See Dkt. No. 57. But the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require

21

that a motion for attorney’s fees be filed within 14 days after the entry of judgment, unless a

22

statute or court order modifies that deadline. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2). This 14-day time limit

23

is “not jurisdictional.” Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 889 (9th Cir.

24

2000) (internal quotation omitted). However, “[f]ailure to comply with the time limit in Rule 54 is

25

a sufficient reason to deny a motion for fees absent some compelling showing of good cause.” In

26

re Veritas Software Corp. Sec. Litig., 496 F.3d 962, 972 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Kona Enterprises,

27

Inc., 229 F.3d at 889–90).

28

The Court will give counsel for D.W. the opportunity to make a “compelling showing of

1

good cause” as to why the motion for attorney’s fees should not be denied for failure to comply

2

with Rule 54(d)(2). The Court finds that the rule’s 14-day time limit applies to this action, and

3

rejects D.W’s arguments to the contrary. Accordingly, counsel is ORDERED to file by

4

December 28, 2018 a statement of five pages or less establishing a “compelling showing of good

5

cause” for failure to file within the statutory time period. The statement should be supported by a

6

declaration to the extent counsel relies on factual representations. The matter will remain

7

submitted once the statement is filed, unless the Court orders otherwise. Failure to timely submit

8

the statement will result in denial of the motion for failure to comply with Rule 54, without further

9

notice.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 12/6/2018
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2