Plexxikon Inc. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation

Filing 356

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting 354 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/17/2019)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 DURIE TANGRI LLP DARALYN J. DURIE (SBN 169825) ddurie@durietangri.com DAVID McGOWAN (SBN 154289) dmcgowan@durietangri.com EUGENE NOVIKOV (SBN 257849) enovikov@durietangri.com LAURA E. MILLER (SBN 271713) lmiller@durietangri.com RAGHAV R. KRISHNAPRIYAN (SBN 273411) rkrishnapriyan@durietangri.com MATTHEW W. SAMUELS (SBN 294668) msamuels@durietangri.com 217 Leidesdorff Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: 415-362-6666 Facsimile: 415-236-6300 YOUNG BASILE HANLON & MACFARLANE, P.C. JEFFREY D. WILSON (Pro Hac Vice) wilson@youngbasile.com ANDREW R. BASILE, JR. (SBN 208396) abasile@youngbasile.com EDDIE D. WOODWORTH (Pro Hac Vice) woodworth@youngbasile.com RYAN T. MCCLEARY (Pro Hac Vice) mccleary@youngbasile.com 3001 W. Big Beaver Road, Suite 624 Troy, MI 48084 Telephone: (248) 649-3333 Facsimile: (248) 649-3338 Attorneys for Plaintiff PLEXXIKON INC. 18 19 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 20 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 21 OAKLAND DIVISION 22 PLEXXIKON INC., 23 24 25 26 27 Case No. 4:17-cv-04405-HSG Plaintiff, v. NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION, Defendant. PLAINTIFF PLEXXIKON INC.’S MOTION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO SUBMIT OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION Ctrm: 2 – 4th Floor Judge: Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. 28 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO SUBMIT OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR LEAVE / CASE NO. 4:17-CV-04405-HSG 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 I. BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................1 3 II. DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................................................2 4 III. CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 i PLAINTIFF’S MOTION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO SUBMIT OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR LEAVE / CASE NO. 4:17-CV-04405-HSG TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 1 2 Page(s) 3 Cases 4 Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253 (9th Cir. 2010) ............................................................................................................2, 3 5 6 Briones v. Riviera Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d 379 (9th Cir. 1997) ..................................................................................................................2 7 8 Pincay v. Andrews, 389 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc) ..................................................................................................3 9 Rules 10 11 12 13 Fed. R. Civ. P. 6........................................................................................................................................1, 2 Local Rule 6-3 ...........................................................................................................................................................1 7-2(a).......................................................................................................................................................2 7-3(a).......................................................................................................................................................1 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ii PLAINTIFF’S MOTION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO SUBMIT OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR LEAVE / CASE NO. 4:17-CV-04405-HSG 1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B) and Northern District of California Civil 2 Local Rules 6-3, Plaintiff Plexxikon Inc. (“Plexxikon”) respectfully requests that the Court enter an order 3 extending the time for Plexxikon to oppose Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Second Summary 4 Judgment Motion (“Motion for Leave”) from December 9, 2019 to December 10, 2019 and allowing 5 Plexxikon’s filing made on that date. Defendant Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation (“Novartis”) has 6 indicated that it does not consent to Plexxikon’s motion, but does not intend to file an opposition. See 7 Decl. Eugene Novikov in Supp. Mot. (“Novikov Decl.”) ¶ 8, Ex. B. 8 I. 9 BACKGROUND Novartis filed its Motion for Leave on November 26, 2019. ECF No. 345. Under Local Rule 7- 10 3(a), Plexxikon’s opposition to Novartis’s Motion for Leave was due on Monday, December 9, 2019. 11 See L.R. 7-3(a). Plexxikon filed the opposition one day late due to a calendaring error occasioned by an 12 unfortunate and unlikely series of events. 13 On the evening of the December 3, 2019 Case Management Conference, counsel for Plexxikon 14 prepared an internal summary of upcoming deadlines incorporating the changed and additional deadlines 15 announced at the Case Management Conference. See Novikov Decl. ¶ 3. In that summary, counsel 16 inadvertently misstated the deadline for Plexxikon’s opposition to Novartis’s Motion for Leave, writing 17 that it was due one week from the date of the email’s transmission—i.e., December 10, 2019. Id. 18 After the summary was circulated, calendaring staff for Plexxikon’s counsel used the summary to 19 adjust the case calendar in the firm’s CompuLaw software. Id. ¶ 4. Because certain other deadlines and 20 events were added and changed at the Case Management Conference, as set forth in the summary, 21 counsel’s calendaring staff interpreted the inadvertent misstatement of the deadline for the opposition to 22 the Motion for Leave as likewise changing the previously-calendared deadline from December 9 to 23 December 10, and made the adjustment in the CompuLaw software. Id. These changes are reflected in 24 an Event Audit Report of counsel’s CompuLaw software. Id. ¶ 5, Ex. A at 9. 25 Counsel thereafter relied on the incorrectly calendared date to file Plexxikon’s opposition to 26 Novartis’s Motion for Leave one day late, on December 10, 2019. Id. ¶ 6; see ECF No. 351. Counsel 27 discovered the fact of the belated filing after reviewing Novartis’s reply in support of its Motion for 28 Leave, filed on December 13, 2019. Id.; see ECF No. 353. 1 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO SUBMIT OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR LEAVE / CASE NO. 4:17-CV-04405-HSG 1 2 II. DISCUSSION Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B) provides that for any act that must be done by a party 3 within a specified time frame, the court may “for good cause, extend the time . . . after the time has 4 expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B). Courts in the 5 Ninth Circuit examine factors such as the danger of prejudice to the nonmoving party, the length of the 6 delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, the reason for the delay, and whether the movant 7 acted in good faith. Briones v. Riviera Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d 379, 381 (9th Cir. 1997). “[T]he 8 determination of whether a party’s neglect is excusable ‘is at bottom an equitable one, taking account of 9 all relevant circumstances surrounding the party’s omission.’” Id. at 382 (quoting Pioneer Inv. Servs. 10 Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993)). “This rule, like all the Federal Rules of 11 Civil Procedure, ‘[is] to be liberally construed to effectuate the general purpose of seeing that cases are 12 tried on the merits.’” Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258–59 (9th Cir. 2010) 13 (alteration in original) (citations omitted). 14 Counsel’s failure to timely file Plexxikon’s opposition to Novartis’s Motion for Leave is the 15 result of excusable neglect. As to the first Briones factor, prejudice, Novartis does not contend in its 16 reply brief that it would be prejudiced should the Court accept Plexxikon’s opposition. See ECF No. 353 17 at 1. As to the second, the length of the delay and its impact, Plexxikon’s one-day delay will not impact 18 the proceedings in this case, as Novartis’s motion remains scheduled to be heard on January 19, 2019, 19 and the motion is now completely briefed with a longer lead time to the hearing than the Local Rules 20 specify. See L.R. 7-2(a). Moreover, the Ninth Circuit has found longer delays sufficiently de minimis to 21 warrant permitting the late filing. See, e.g., Ahanchian, 624 F.3d at 1262 (concluding plaintiff’s counsel 22 sufficiently established that his three-day-late filing of an opposition to defendant’s summary judgment 23 motion was the result of excusable neglect); Briones, 116 F.3d at 380 (remanding for district court to 24 consider whether to entertain opposition filed three and one-half months after the filing deadline). 25 The third and fourth factors, the reason for the delay and the movant’s good faith, also weigh in 26 favor of granting Plexxikon’s motion here. As explained above and in the accompanying declaration, the 27 delay was due to an unlikely confluence of events that caused counsel’s calendared deadline to 28 incorrectly shift by a day. The Ninth Circuit has found excusable neglect on a less clear record. See 2 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO SUBMIT OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR LEAVE / CASE NO. 4:17-CV-04405-HSG 1 Ahanchain, 624 F.3d at 1262 (concluding that the plaintiff should have been allowed to file an opposition 2 three days after the deadline where the belated filing was “due to a calendaring mistake and computer 3 problems”); Pincay v. Andrews, 389 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (affirming a finding of excusable 4 neglect where the defendants asserted that their twenty-four day late filing resulted from a calendaring 5 mistake caused by attorneys and paralegals misapplying a clear legal rule). 6 III. 7 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plexxikon respectfully requests that the Court issue an order extending 8 the time for Plexxikon to file its Opposition to Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File 9 Second Summary Judgment Motion from December 9, 2019 to December 10, 2019 and allowing 10 Plexxikon’s filing made on that date. 11 12 Dated: December 16, 2019 DURIE TANGRI LLP 13 By: /s/ Eugene Novikov EUGENE NOVIKOV 14 15 16 Attorney for Plaintiff PLEXXIKON INC. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO SUBMIT OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR LEAVE / CASE NO. 4:17-CV-04405-HSG 1 2 ORDER Having considered Plaintiff Plexxikon Inc.’s Motion to Extend Time to Oppose Defendant’s 3 Motion for Leave to File Second Summary Judgment Motion and the materials submitted in connection 4 therewith, the Court hereby GRANTS Plexxikon’s motion. The Court finds the December 10, 2019 5 filing of Plexxikon’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Second Summary Judgment 6 Motion, ECF No. 351, to be the result of excusable neglect, and allows this filing under Federal Rule of 7 Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B) and Northern District of California Civil Local Rules 6-3. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. Date:12/17/2019 Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO SUBMIT OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR LEAVE / CASE NO. 4:17-CV-04405-HSG

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?