Aranda v. NTH Connect Telecom Inc., et al

Filing 136

ORDER by Judge James Ware denying 128 Motion for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b) (jwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/24/2008)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Paulo Aranda, v. Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION NO. C 06-04738 JW ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO COURT ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT /

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

NTH Connect Telecom Inc., et al., Defendants.

Presently before the Court is Defendants' Request for Entry of Dismissal.1 Defendants seek to have this case dismissed pursuant to the terms of the parties' settlement because Plaintiff's counsel filed his fee request two days after the deadline. (Request at 2.) In its October 1, 2008 Order, the Court ordered Plaintiff's counsel to file his fee request within fifteen days of the Order. (See Docket Item No. 127.) On October 17, 2008, Defendants filed the present Request because Plaintiff had not yet filed his fee request. Later that day, Plaintiff filed his fee request. On October 20, 2008, Plaintiff's counsel filed an objection to Defendants' present request. (See Docket Item No. 132.) Plaintiff's counsel explains in his Objection that on October 2, 2008, he was admitted to the hospital and on October 3, 2008, underwent a Coronary Artery Angioplasty. (Docket Item No. 132.) Plaintiff's counsel was released from the hospital on October 4, 2008, and advised by doctors not to work for one week. (Id.) He was also advised to work on a limited schedule for one week following (Defendants' Request for Entry of Dismissal Pursuant to Court Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Enforce Settlement, hereafter, "Request," Docket Item No. 128.)
1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

his initial week of rest. (Id.) Accordingly, Plaintiff's counsel was unable to file his fee request until October 17, 2008, two days after the deadline set by the Court. (Id.) Although Plaintiff's counsel should have found a way to notify the Court regarding his inability to file a timely fee request, the Court finds that Plaintiff's counsel has shown good cause for the Court to excuse his tardy filings. Accordingly, Defendants' Request is DENIED.

Dated: October 24, 2008

JAMES WARE United States District Judge

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO: Adam Wang [e-mail] Grant Andrew Carlson [e-mail] Dated: October 24, 2008 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: /s/ JW Chambers Elizabeth Garcia Courtroom Deputy

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28