Zahourek Systems, Inc. v. Balanced Body University, LLC
Filing
245
ORDER denying 242 Motion for Extension of Time to File. So Ordered by Judge Raymond P. Moore on 07/13/2018. (rmlc2)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Raymond P. Moore
Case No. 13-cv-01812-RM-MLC
ZAHOUREK SYSTEMS, INC.
JON ZAHOUREK,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BALANCED BODY UNIVERSITY, LLC,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court with the filing of Defendant Balanced Body University, LLC’s
(“defendant”) motion for extension of time to file motion for attorney’s fees (“the motion”) (ECF
No. 242). Plaintiffs, Zahourek Systems, Inc. (“ZSI”) and Jon Zahourek (“Zahourek”) (collectively,
“plaintiffs”), have filed a response. (ECF No. 244.) The Court does not need a reply to rule on the
motion.
As the Court has stated before in this case, the parties’ conduct in this case, this time
defendant’s, never ceases to confuse. On June 28, 2018, this Court entered Final Judgment in this
case. (ECF No. 241.) As defendant acknowledges in the motion, its motion for attorney fees was,
thus, due on July 12, 2018. (See ECF No. 242 at 1-2.) For some reason that is entirely unexplained
in the motion, defendant then chose to file a motion for extension of time to file its motion for
attorney fees on July 12, 2018. (ECF No. 242.) Not only that, the “Notice of Electronic Filing” on
CM/ECF reflects that defendant waited until 7:44 p.m. on July 12, 2018. In other words, although
defendant states that there are a “large number” of legal-fee invoices at issue, it chose not to file a
motion for extension on any day between June 29, 2018 and July 11, 2018; instead, it waited until
the last possible minute to do so.
Perhaps, under other circumstances, such last-minute action may not be so inexcusable. But,
in this case, defendant was more than fully aware of the reasons that it would purportedly not be able
to file its motion for attorney fees on time. Defendant asserts that those reasons were the July 4th
holiday and an undisclosed “personal engagement” that required counsel to be out of the office.
(ECF No. 242 at 2.) The July 4th holiday is, obviously, very well known and fixed in the calendar.
As for counsel’s personal engagement, even if the Court makes the generous assumption that counsel
did not know about this engagement until the day it began, counsel states that the engagement
occurred during the week of July 9, 2018. The fact that, as defendant asserts, there are “three
different law firms” working for defendant makes the failure for someone from one of those law
firms to file a motion for extension earlier even less excusable.
Apart from defendant’s failure to provide good cause for the delay,1 the motion is also subject
to denial because it violates the Local Rules. Local Rule 7.1(a) requires counsel, before filing a
motion, to confer or make “reasonable good faith efforts” to confer with opposing counsel about the
relief sought in the underlying motion. D.C.Colo. L.Civ.R. 7.1(a). In the motion, defendant asserts
that it “attempted to reach Plaintiffs’ counsel and has been unable to do so.” (ECF No. 242 at 1.)
That, however, at best, is misleading. In response, plaintiffs assert that counsel for defendant did not
1
To the extent it was not clear, the Court finds none of the reasons defendant provided for needing
more time to constitute good cause.
2
attempt to confer until 6:20 p.m. on July 12, 2018. (ECF No. 244 at 1.) Fortunately, plaintiffs attach
defendant’s attempt to confer. It is an email sent at 6:18 p.m. on July 12, 2018. (ECF No. 244-1
at 1.) As mentioned supra, less than 90 minutes later defendant filed the instant motion. As far as
the Court is concerned, that is not conferral and it is not a reasonable good faith effort to confer. It
is entirely unreasonable. As a result, defendant has violated Local Rule 7.1(a), and the motion will
be denied on that ground as well.2
For these reasons, the motion (ECF No. 242) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
DATED this 13th day of July, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
____________________________________
RAYMOND P. MOORE
United States District Judge
2
The attachment to plaintiffs’ response is also interesting because it is not just a single email; it
contains an email chain. In an email sent on July 10, 2018, counsel for defendant told counsel for plaintiffs
that defendant “will be” filing its motion for attorney fees on “Thursday,” i.e., July 12, 2018. (ECF
No. 244-1 at 2.) What happened between July 10 and July 12, 2018, the Court does not know, but it places
defendant’s reasons for not being able to file a timely motion in a distinctly unfavorable light.
3
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?