Schrotberger v. Grays Harbor County et al

Filing 80

ORDER granting 75 Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time; the Court INVITES Defendants to respond to Schrotberger's Motion for Reconsideration by 8/4/17; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN)

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8

BRYAN SCHROTBERGER,

CASE NO. C15-5949-RBL

9
Plaintiff,
10
11

ORDER ON MOTIONS

v.
GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, et al.

12

DKT. #75, 77

Defendants.

13
14

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Schrotberger’s Motion for an Extension

15

of Time [Dkt. #75] and his Motion for Reconsideration [Dkt. #77]. Schrotberger sued

16

Defendants for their use of excessive force while he was detained at the Grays Harbor County

17

Jail. A jury returned a verdict in Schrotberger’s favor on May 10, 2017, and judgment was

18

entered the next day. Thirty-two days later, Schrotberger moved for attorneys’ fees and costs.

19

The Court misread the motion’s noting date and mistakenly thought Schrotberger had neglected

20

to file a reply, and as such, had failed also to explain why his motion was untimely. The Court

21

denied his motion:

22
23
24

ORDER ON MOTIONS - 1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

See Dkt. #74 (Order on Motion for Fees) at 2.
Schrotberger post-hoc moved for an extension of time asking the Court to permit him to
bring his already-late-filed motion for fees. His attorney argues she could not have brought his
motion sooner because she and defense counsel were attempting to resolve the matter outside
court. She also explains that her paralegal was out of town and she was busy with another case,
so she overlooked the deadline to request fees. Defendants argue Schrotberger has failed to
establish excusable neglect, and to allow him to move for fees so late would prejudice them
because they missed the window to appeal.
The Court may extend a deadline “on a motion made after the time has expired if the
party failed to act because of excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). When determining
whether the party’s neglect is “excusable,” courts consider (1) the danger of prejudice to the
opposing party, (2) the length of the delay, and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, (3)
the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant,
and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith. See Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs.
Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395, 113 S. Ct. 1489 (1993).
The totality of these factors persuade the Court to grant Schrotberger’s motion. While this
delay was entirely in his control, any prejudice to the Defendants can be eliminated by the Court
extending their time period to appeal for good cause under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure

DKT. #75, 77 - 2

1

4(a)(5)(A)(ii); the delay did not affect the judicial proceedings, as they were already complete;

2

and Defendants concede Schrotberger acted in good faith. If defense counsel was collaborating

3

with Schrotberger’s attorney to resolve the matter outside of court, as Schrotberger contends,

4

then defendants cannot be genuinely surprised that after negotiations failed, Schrotberger moved

5

for fees. Therefore, Schrotberger’s Motion for an Extension of Time [Dkt. #75] is GRANTED.

6

Schrotberger also asks the Court to reconsider denying his motion for fees, now that he

7

has explained why his motion was untimely. The Court will not grant a motion for

8

reconsideration until it has allowed the non-moving party to file a response. See Local Rule CR

9

7(h)(3). The Court INVITES Defendants to respond to Schrotberger’s motion for reconsideration

10

by Friday, August 4.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

Dated this 17th day of July, 2017.

14

A

15

Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge

13

16

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

DKT. #75, 77 - 3