Safe Streets Alliance et al v. Alternative Holistic Healing, LLC et al
ORDER Denying 133 defendants Motion To Strike Untimely Objection, by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 3/1/2016.(evana, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 15-cv-00349-REB-CBS
SAFE STREETS ALLIANCE, et al,
ALTERNATIVE HOLISTIC HEALING, LLC, et al,
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE UNTIMELY OBJECTION
The matter before me is defendants’ Motion To Strike Untimely Objection
[#133],1 filed February 25, 2016. I deny the motion.
Defendants claim that Plaintiffs’ Objection to Magistrate Judge
Recommendation on Private RICO Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss [#132], filed
February 24, 2016, challenging the Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge [#128], filed February 8, 206, should be stricken as untimely. Under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b)(2), a party has 14 days after service of the magistrate judge’s recommendation
to serve and file any objections thereto. As defendants correctly note, fourteen days
from February 8, 2016, was February 22, 2016. Defendants thus conclude that
plaintiffs’ objection, filed February 24, 2016, is untimely.
However, defendants apparently neglected to consider the application of Rule
“[#133]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this
convention throughout this order.
6(d), which codifies the common law “mailbox rule.” Rule 6(d) provides in relevant part
that “[w]hen a party may or must act within a specified time after service . . . 3 days are
added after the period would otherwise expire under Rule 6(a).” FED. R. CIV. P. 6(d)
(emphasis added).2 Because Rule 72(b)(2) is keyed to the date of the service, this rule
extended plaintiffs’ time to respond by three days until February 25, 2016. Thus, their
objections, submitted the day before the deadline, were timely. Cf. Parker v. Board of
Public Utilities of Kansas City, Kansas, 77 F.3d 1289, 1290 (10th Cir. 1996) (mailbox
rule inapplicable to deadline for filing timely motion under Rule 59(e), which is keyed to
entry of date of judgment, not service).3
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that defendants’ Motion To Strike Untimely
Objection [#133], filed February 25, 2016, is denied.
Dated March 1, 2016, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
Rule 6(d) specifies certain types of service to which the mailbox rule will apply. These include,
importantly, service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(E), which provides for electronic service.
Defendants provide no authority for their assertion that the additional time provided by Rule
6(d) does not apply when service is to the court, rather than between the parties, and I have found none.
To the contrary, this court has consistently applied the rule in the context of serving objections to a
recommendation of the magistrate judge. See, e.g., Escobar v. Holditch, 2011 WL 3924970 at *1 n.1
(D. Colo. Sept. 6, 2011); Lazarov v. Kimmel, 2011 WL 588074 at *3 & n.2 (D. Colo. Feb. 9, 2011);
Kartiganer v. Newman, 2010 WL 3928087 at *1 (D. Colo. Sept. 24, 2010); Preacher v. Wiley, 2010 WL
1753324 at *4 n.6 (D. Colo. Apr. 29, 2010); Savajian v. Milyard, 2010 WL 728219 at *3 n.2 (D. Colo.
Feb. 25, 2010).
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?