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

E.D. California

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

District Court, E.D. California·Decided January 17, 2025·No. 2:15-cv-01280·Unknown

Opinion

AGK SIERRA DE MONTSERRAT, L.P., No. 2:15-cv-01280-DAD-SCR Plaintiff, v. ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

Defendant. 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 (1993)). Additionally, the court requires additional briefing addressing whether performance of the Assignment of Declarant Rights (“ADR”), which the court has already found was breached by defendant, was an express condition of the parties’ Purchase and Sale Agreement which includes an attorneys’ fee provision. (See Doc. No. 118 at 81) (“Because Comerica has refused to indemnify AGK for its losses and costs incurred in its defense in both the Kincade and Murphy Actions, as well as AGK’s losses and costs incurred in enforcing the indemnity paragraph in this action, the court thus concludes that Comerica has breached the final ADR.”) Accordingly, the parties are directed to file simultaneous supplemental briefing, including supporting legal authority, by January 27, 2025, addressing the following issues: 1. Whether, should the court determine that plaintiff's motion is not timely, that untimeliness was a result of “excusable neglect;” and 2. Whether performance of the Assignment of Declarant Rights was an express condition of the Purchase and Sale Agreement. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ January 16,2025 Da A. 2, ye UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

AGK SIERRA DE MONTSERRAT, L.P., No. 2:15-cv-01280-DAD-SCR Plaintiff, v. ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

Defendant. 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 (1993)). Additionally, the court requires additional briefing addressing whether performance of the Assignment of Declarant Rights (“ADR”), which the court has already found was breached by defendant, was an express condition of the parties’ Purchase and Sale Agreement which includes an attorneys’ fee provision. (See Doc. No. 118 at 81) (“Because Comerica has refused to indemnify AGK for its losses and costs incurred in its defense in both the Kincade and Murphy Actions, as well as AGK’s losses and costs incurred in enforcing the indemnity paragraph in this action, the court thus concludes that Comerica has breached the final ADR.”) Accordingly, the parties are directed to file simultaneous supplemental briefing, including supporting legal authority, by January 27, 2025, addressing the following issues: 1. Whether, should the court determine that plaintiff's motion is not timely, that untimeliness was a result of “excusable neglect;” and 2. Whether performance of the Assignment of Declarant Rights was an express condition of the Purchase and Sale Agreement. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ January 16,2025 Da A. 2, ye UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

AGK Sierra de Montserrat, L.P. v. Comerica Bank, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

AGK Sierra de Montserrat, L.P. v. Comerica Bank (AGK Sierra de Montserrat, L.P. v. Comerica Bank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related