AGK Sierra de Montserrat, L.P. v. Comerica Bank

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 AGK SIERRA DE MONTSERRAT, L.P., No. 2:15-cv-01280-DAD-SCR Plaintiff, v. ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO FILE

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

COMERICA BANK,

Defendant. 16 The court issues this order as a result of its review of plaintiff’s pending motion for attorneys’ fees and costs, defendant’s opposition to that motion, and plaintiff’s reply thereto. (Doc. Nos. 139, 146, 147.) Defendant contends that plaintiff’s motion was not timely filed. (Doc. No. 146 at 8–9.) Plaintiff has not addressed whether: (1) if the motion was not timely filed, they are seeking an extension of time to so move pursuant to Rule 6(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and (2) whether the delay in the filing of its Rule 54 motion was a result of “excusable neglect.” See El-Said v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, No. 8:19-cv-02426-JLS-JDE, 2023 WL 3551959, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2023) (citing Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395…