Righthaven LLC v. Mostofi

Filing 43

ORDER that Defendants Motion for Enlargement of Time 37 is DENIED. Defendants Motion for Attorneys Fees 41 is DENIED as untimely. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 10/6/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ECS)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 10 RIGHTHAVEN, LLC, 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 DEAN MOSTOFI, 14 Case No. 2:10-CV-1066-KJD-GWF Defendant. ORDER 15 16 Presently before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Enlargement of Time (#37) to file 17 motion for attorney’s fees. Plaintiff filed a response in opposition (#38). Defendant sought an 18 extension of time on the last day, July 27, 2011, to file a motion for attorney’s fees as a prevailing 19 party in a copyright infringement action. The motion was filed by Clyde DeWitt, a Nevada attorney, 20 at the behest of Thomas C. Willcox, an attorney located in Washington, D.C., who appeared subject 21 to pro hac vice admission. However, Willcox never filed his pro hac vice application or appeared in 22 this action. Defendant alleges that he hired Willcox in order to represent him for the sole purpose of 23 recovering fees in this action, but at the conclusion of the requested extension period he decided to 24 continue representing himself. Defendant then filed his Motion for Attorney’s Fees (#41) on August 25 10, 2011, the last day of the requested extension period, and the same day that DeWitt moved to 26 withdraw as his attorney. 1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6 (b) allows a court to accept a late filing when the failure to 2 act timely is the result of excusable neglect. Late filings caused by inadvertence, mistake or 3 carelessness are permitted under the Rule with approval of the court. See Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. 4 Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 388 (1993). Here, Plaintiff has not shown 5 sufficient grounds for filing his motion for an extension late. Ostensibly, the extension was sought to 6 have an attorney get familiar with the case and prepare a motion. That did not happen. Therefore, 7 the Court denies the motion for an extension of time. Consequently, the Court denies the motion for 8 attorney’s fees as untimely. 9 10 11 12 13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Enlargement of Time (#37) is DENIED; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees (#41) is DENIED as untimely. DATED this 6th day of October 2011. 14 15 16 17 _____________________________ Kent J. Dawson United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2

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?