Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

IN RE REZULIN PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

United States District Court, Southern District of New York


May 16, 2003

IN RE: REZULIN PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lewis A. Kaplan, District Judge.

PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 148 (Objections to Report and Recommendation — Garza)
On April 18, 2003, Magistrate Judge Katz recommended that plaintiffs' motion to remand be denied and specifically pointed out that any objections were due within 10 days. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). No objections having been filed, the Court entered an order denying the motion on May 12, 2003.

The undersigned today received objections on behalf of the plaintiffs which indicate that they were mailed on May 9, 2003. Thus far, no objections have been filed.

Section 636(b)(1)(C) and Rule 72(b) require the filing of objections "[w]ithin ten days after being served with" a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. Rule 6(e) extends that period by three days where, as here, a party is required to do an act "within a prescribed period after the service of a notice or other paper" that is served by mail. Furthermore, Rule 6(a) provides that "[w]hen the period of time prescribed or allowed is less than 11 days, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays shall be excluded in the computation."

Viewing the matter most favorably for plaintiffs, they had, by virtue of the combined operation of Rules 72(b), 6(a) and 6(e), until May 7, 2003 to file objections.*fn1 Thus, plaintiffs' objections were untimely as of the date on which the cover letter indicates they were mailed, let alone filed.

As no objections were timely filed, plaintiffs' objections are overruled.

SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge Finally, it is possible that the three day enlargement provided under Rule 6(e) renders inapplicable the weekend and holiday exclusion rule under 6(a) because it would extend the ten day "period of time prescribed or allowed" for filing objections from ten to thirteen days. Under this interpretation, plaintiffs would have had thirteen days from April 18, 2003 within which to file objections, or until May 1, 2003.

As plaintiffs' objections are untimely under any view, it is unnecessary to consider which of these alternatives is correct.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.