Jimenez

Jimenez v. Ford Motor Company

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaAugust 8, 20223:21-cv-04967California595 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ABELARDO GARCIA JIMENEZ, et al., Case No. 21-cv-04967-VC

Plaintiffs,

ORDER RE JUDGMENT AND

v. ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Re: Dkt. Nos. 32, 33, 41 Defendant.

The motions for attorneys’ fees and costs are granted in part, and judgment is entered against Ford consistent with the parties’ Rule 68 settlement. 1. Request to Keep Case Open. The parties’ request to keep the case open until the terms of the settlement are completed is denied. See Dkt. No. 41. Ensuring compliance with a consummated settlement agreement is not a reason to keep a case open. If a party fails to comply with a settlement agreement, the opposing party has remedies regardless of whether the case is open. 2. Untimely Opposition to Motions for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. Under Rule 6(b)(2), a court may, in its discretion, accept late filings “upon motion made” where the late filing was the “result of excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(2). Ford did not file a motion under Rule 6(b)(2), but instead submitted its untimely opposition with an explanation of the delay. The Court may…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.