Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

CNPQ-CONSELHO NACIONAL DE DESENVOLVIMENTO CIENTIFICO E TECNOLOGICO v. INTER-TRADE </h1> <p class="docCourt"> </p> <p> April 4, 1995 </p> <p class="case-parties"> <b>CNPQ-CONSELHO NACIONAL DE DESENVOLVIMENTO CIENTIFICO E TECNOLOGICO, AN AGENCY OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF BRAZIL, APPELLEE<br><br>v.<br><br>INTER-TRADE, INC., A DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CORPORATION, ET AL., APPELLANTS</b><br><br> </p> <div class="caseCopy"> <div class="facLeaderBoard"> <script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "ca-pub-1233285632737842"; /* FACLeaderBoard */ google_ad_slot = "8524463142"; google_ad_width = 728; google_ad_height = 90; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src=""> </script> </div class="facLeaderBoard"> <div class="numbered-paragraph"><p><br> Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (94cv1153)</p></div> <div class="numbered-paragraph"><p> Before: Edwards, Chief Judge, Silberman and Buckley, Circuit Judges.</p></div> <div class="numbered-paragraph"><p> Opinion for the court filed Per Curiam.</p></div> <div class="numbered-paragraph"><p> FOR PUBLICATION</p></div> <div class="numbered-paragraph"><p> FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT</p></div> <div class="numbered-paragraph"><p> ON MOTION TO DISMISS</p></div> <div class="numbered-paragraph"><p> Opinion for the Court filed Per Curiam.</p></div> <div class="numbered-paragraph"><p> Per Curiam: This case is before the court on the motion of appellee CNPq-Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq) to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The appeal was brought by Inter-Trade, Inc., and others (Inter-Trade), which seek to challenge a magistrate judge's assessment of attorneys' fees and costs as part of a decision remanding the case to the District of Columbia Superior Court. Under the Federal Rules, a party displeased by a magistrate judge's order must file written objections within ten days as a prerequisite to obtaining appellate review. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; Pagano v. Frank, <a>983 F.2d 343</a>, 345 & n.3 (1st Cir. 1993). Inter-Trade's attempt to do so was rejected by the district court as out of time, and CNPq claims that as a result we lack jurisdiction to review the magistrate's order. The contested issue is whether the three days added to the filing deadline by Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(e) to account for mailing are calendar days (which include weekends and legal holidays) or business days. We hold that the three days provided by Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(e) are calendar days. <a href="#D*fn1" name="S*fn1">*fn1</a> On June 23, 1994, the magistrate judge to whom the pretrial matters in this case had been assigned pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 granted CNPq's motion for remand to D.C. Superior Court and its accompanying request for attorneys' fees and costs. The order was served on the parties by mail. On July 12, Inter-Trade attempted to file written objections to the magistrate judge's order. The district court refused to accept Inter-Trade's objections, however, because earlier that same day it had formally approved the order.</p></div> <div class="numbered-paragraph"><p> Inter-Trade now seeks review of the magistrate judge's order imposing liability for attorneys' fees and costs. CNPq counters that since Inter-Trade's objections were refused by the district court as untimely, they were not preserved for appeal. Inter-Trade responds that it is entitled to review of the order in spite of the district court's refusal to accept its objections; that refusal, Inter-Trade claims, erroneously truncated the time within which it was permitted to object and thereby preserve its challenge for appeal.</p></div> <div class="facAdFloatLeft"> <script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "ca-pub-1233285632737842"; /* FACContentLeftSkyscraperWide */ google_ad_slot = "1266897617"; google_ad_width = 160; google_ad_height = 600; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src=""></script> </div class="facLeaderBoard"> <div class="numbered-paragraph"><p> Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 provides that objections to an order or recommendation of a magistrate judge are to be filed "within 10 days after being served with a copy." The Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 indicate that this ten-day period is subject to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(e). For its part, Rule 6(e) states:</p></div> <div class="numbered-paragraph"><p> Whenever a party has the right or is required to do some act or take some proceedings within a prescribed period after the service of a notice or other paper upon the party and the notice or paper is served upon the party by mail, 3 days shall be added to the prescribed period.</p></div> <div class="numbered-paragraph"><p> Both parties agree that since the magistrate judge's order in this case was served on the parties by mail, Rule 6(e) extended the ten-day period for objecting by three days.</p></div> <div class="numbered-paragraph"><p> The parties also agree that the ten days available pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 are business days, since Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a) excludes weekends and legal holidays from the computation of filing periods of less than eleven days.</p></div> <div class="numbered-paragraph"><p> In computing any period of time prescribed or allowed by these rules ... [w]hen the period ... prescribed or allowed is less than 11 days, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays shall be excluded in the computation.</p></div> <div class="numbered-paragraph"> <p> Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a). The question upon which this case turns is whether Rule 6(e)'s three-day extension is subject to Rule 6(a)'s exclusion of weekends and holidays. If it is not, then the district court correctly refused to enter Inter-Trade's objections, which would have been due on July 11-the day before they were filed. If, on the other hand, Rule 6(a) does apply to the Rule 6(e) extension, InterTrade's objections were properly submitted to the district court. <a href="#D*fn2" name="S*fn2">*fn2</a> Rule 6(a) sets forth the method for "computing any period of time prescribed or allowed by these rules." Rule 6(e) does not, we think, establish a "period of time" within the meaning of Rule 6(a). The latter apparently contemplates periods of time bounded by specific acts or occurrences-such as the period of time between service of a magistrate's judgment and the filing of objections. Rule 6(e) does not, in our view, establish a "period of time" in this sense. It provides for a three-day extension to a "prescribed period," and that extension is not in itself a period governed by Rule 6(a)'s counting instructions for periods under eleven days. See Tushner v. United States ...</p> </div> </div> </div> <div id="caseToolTip" class="caseToolTip" style="display: none;"> <div class="toolTipHead"> </div> <div class="toolTipContent"> <p> Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion. To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase, you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents and concurrences that accompany the decision. Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion, there may not be additional text. </p> </div> <div class="toolTipFoot"> </div> </div> <br /> <div class="buyNowContainer"> <div class="price"> <img src="/assets/img/findACase/bracket-left.png" alt="" /> <span>Buy This Entire Record For $7.95</span> <img src="/assets/img/findACase/pdf.png" class="pdf" alt="" /> <img src="/assets/img/findACase/bracket-right.png" alt="" /> </div> <div class="details"> <p> Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,<br /> docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case. </p> <p> <a class="showCaseToolTip">Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.</a> </p> </div> <div class="buttons"> <input type="submit" name="FAC$cphMainContent$btnBuyNowBottom" value="Buy Now" id="btnBuyNowBottom" class="btn-cart-buy-now btn btn-fac btnOrderTop" data-doc-short-name="19950404_0000082.cdc.htm" data-doc-title="<title> CNPQ-CONSELHO NACIONAL DE DESENVOLVIMENTO CIENTIFICO E TECNOLOGICO v. INTER-TRADE" /> <input type="submit" name="FAC$cphMainContent$btnAddToCartBottom" value="Add To Cart" id="btnAddToCartBottom" class="btn-cart-add btn btn-fac btnOrderTop" data-doc-short-name="19950404_0000082.cdc.htm" data-doc-title="<title> CNPQ-CONSELHO NACIONAL DE DESENVOLVIMENTO CIENTIFICO E TECNOLOGICO v. INTER-TRADE" /> </div> </div> <input type="hidden" name="FAC$cphMainContent$hfDocID" id="hfDocID" value="\FCT\CDC\1995\19950404_0000082.CDC.htm" /> <input type="hidden" name="FAC$cphMainContent$hfDocTitle" id="hfDocTitle" value="<title> CNPQ-CONSELHO NACIONAL DE DESENVOLVIMENTO CIENTIFICO E TECNOLOGICO v. INTER-TRADE" /> <input type="hidden" name="FAC$cphMainContent$hfDocShortName" id="hfDocShortName" value="19950404_0000082.CDC.htm" /> </div> <div id="pnlGrayBarBottom" class="grayBar"> <span class="grayBarLeft"></span><span class="grayBarRight"></span> </div> <div id="footer"> <p> <a href="">Home</a> <span>/</span> <a href=""> Our Sources</a> <span>/</span> <a href="">About Us</a> <span>/</span> <a href="">FAQs</a> <span>/</span> <a href="">Advanced Search</a> </p> <p> copyright 2018 LRC, Inc. <a href="">About Us</a> </p> <p> <span id="privacyPolicy"><a href="">PRIVACY POLICY</a></span> </p> <div id="crosslink" style="width: 100%; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><a href=""><img src="" alt="Litigation Pathfinder - practical legal advice and comprehensive research resources made affordable" style="width: 375px;" /></a></div> </div> </div> </form> </body> </html>