Professional Courtesies Stressed Greatly in This Sobering Opinion.
We knew that this next case would be interesting when it led off with this quote from Charles E. Clark’s article entitled History, Systems and Functions of Pleading, published at 11 Va. L. Rev. 517, 542 (1925): Procedure “is a means to an end, not an end in itself--the ‘handmaid rather than the mistress’ of justice.” What we did not know is that the decision also would be a primer and have great quotes on the professional courtesies that attorneys should extend to their colleagues on the opposite side of a matter. With that said, read this with interest, all you members of any Bar.
In Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., Case Nos. 08-56667/08-56906 (9th Cir Nov. 3, 2010) (for publication), a California Central District judge granted summary judgment in favor of defendants after denying plaintiff’s counsel’s request for a one-week extension to file a SJM opposition because counsel had a prior out-of-state commitment, there was an intervening holiday, and voluminous exhibits needed to be prepared as part of the SJM opposition. (Until this point, apparently, defense counsel had extended professional courtesies, but vehemently opposed the SJM opposition extension requested by plaintiff’s counsel.) Nonetheless, plaintiff was still able to file the SJM opposition, albeit 3 days late. (There is an anomaly here--C.D. Cal. Local Rules generally allow 7 days for a SJM opposition while other California federal district courts allow for a longer 14 days, twice the C.D. Cal. time to oppose.) The district judge denied plaintiff’s request to file the late-filed SJM opposition and “add[ing] injury to insult” awarded defense counsel $247,171.32 in attorney’s fees!
Bad facts, you bet. Plaintiff’s appeal was vindicated in a reversal by the Ninth Circuit, in a 3-0 panel decision authored by Circuit Judge Wardlaw.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1) has a liberal “good cause” extension escape valve which was easily satisfied here--especially given the out-of-state conflict, the intervening holiday, and the need to file a substantial SJM opposition. The district judge also erred in applying an incorrect standard in evaluating the late-filed request under FRCP 60(b), all the more so given that the late filing was only 3 days after the very short 7 day deadline under C.D. Cal. Local Rules.
The Ninth Circuit also chided defense counsel for engaging in “hardball tactics” with respect to the extension request and not granting another professional courtesy under the circumstances. Here are two other quotes which are poignant and bound to be cited in other decisions and briefs in the future:
*”Moreover, attorneys, like everyone else, have critical personal and familial obligations that are particularly acute during holidays. It is important to the health of the legal profession that attorneys strike a balance between these competing demands on their time.”
*”Uncompromising behavior [by defense counsel] is not only inconsistent with general principles of professional conduct, but also undermines the truth-seeking function of our adversarial system.” (NOTE--This was the context of the quote, but we believe it was meant to apply to attorneys in any side of a case.)
Comments