The opinion of the court was delivered by: Denise Cote, District Judge:
Najmuddin Pervez ("Pervez"), the relator in the above-captioned action, moves for an award of expenses, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d)(1) ("§ 3730(d)(1)") of the False Claims Act ("FCA"), 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq. The defendants have objected to the motion as untimely under Rule 54(d)(2)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P., and Local Rule 54.1(a).*fn1
For the following reasons, Pervez's motion is denied.
On February 7, 2006, Najmuddin Pervez filed this qui tam case under the FCA. The United States filed a complaint-in-intervention on September 2, 2010. The next day, the Court so-ordered: (1) the United States and the defendants' stipulation of settlement and dismissal, pursuant to which the defendants paid the United States $2,950,000 (the "Settlement Proceeds"); and, (2) the United States and Pervez's stipulation of settlement and release, under which Pervez was awarded $560,500.00 from the Settlement Proceeds. On September 9, the Clerk of Court entered judgment for the United States and "dismissed with prejudice any and all claims against the defendants." On October 7, Pervez received his share of the Settlement Proceeds.
On February 16, 2011, more than five months after entry of judgment, Pervez filed a motion for expenses, attorneys' fees and costs. The motion became fully submitted on April 15.
Pervez contends that § 3730(d)(1) entitles him to an award of reasonable expenses, attorneys' fees and costs. The defendants maintain that Pervez cannot recover such an award since his application is untimely pursuant to Rule 54(d)(2)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P.
Section 3730(d)(1), titled "Award to qui tam plaintiff," provides in relevant part that "if the Government proceeds with an action," any individual who is entitled to a share of the Government's proceeds "shall also receive an amount for reasonable expenses which the court finds to have been necessarily incurred, plus reasonable attorneys' fees and costs." 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d)(1). "All such expenses, fees, and costs shall be awarded against the defendant." Id.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require "[a] claim for attorney's fees and related nontaxable expenses" to be "made by motion unless the substantive law requires those fees to be proved at trial as an element of damages." Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2)(A). Such a motion "must be filed no later than 14 days after the entry of judgment," absent "a statute or a court order provid[ing] otherwise." Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2)(B)(i). Unless there is "a statute or order of the court such as a local rule, [a] district court [must] . . . find 'excusable neglect' under Rule 6(b)(2) to extend the time to move for attorneys' fees after the expiration of Rule 54's fourteen-day deadline."*fn2
Tancredi v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 378 F.3d 220, 227-28 (2d Cir. 2004) (emphasis supplied). Although excusable neglect is an "elastic concept," when determining whether a party's neglect is excusable a court should 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 in the reasonable control of the movant, and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith.
Id. at 228 (citation omitted).
Judgment in this case was entered on September 9, 2010. The fourteen-day time period in which Pervez was permitted to seek attorney's fees expired on September 23, 2010. Pervez's February 16, 2011 was filed 145 days late. Pervez has not shown excusable neglect for this lengthy delay in filing the motion. An attorney's failure to follow clear and unambiguous procedural rules does not usually constitute excusable neglect. See In re Lynch, 430 F.3d 600, 603-04 (2d Cir. 2005) ...