Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc.
624 F.3d 1253
| 9th Cir. | 2010Background
- Ahanchian sued Xenon Pictures, CKRush, Sam Maccarone, and Preston Lacy for copyright infringement, implied contract, and unfair competition over the movie National Lampoon's TV: The Movie.
- Defendants filed a summary judgment motion on August 25, 2008 with ~1,000 pages of exhibits; Ahanchian had eight days to oppose, including Labor Day weekend.
- Ahanchian sought a one-week extension to file oppositions; district court denied extension and later denied a motion to accept the late opposition as a Rule 60(b) motion.
- Ahanchian filed a late opposition three days after the deadline; district court granted summary judgment and awarded defense attorneys’ fees.
- On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed in part, holding the district court abused its discretion on extension and misapplied Rule 60(b); remanded for merits review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion denying the extension request | Ahanchian showed good cause under Rule 6(b) given local rule peculiarities, holiday constraints, and counsel’s schedule | Defendants argued no good cause and prejudice to them | Yes, abuse of discretion; extension should have been granted |
| Whether the district court erred in denying late opposition as a Rule 60(b) motion | District court failed to apply Pioneer/Briones four-factor test for excusable neglect | Court properly denied relief | Yes, district court erred by not applying Pioneer/Briones and by treating calendaring error as per se non-relief |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by granting summary judgment based on a late opposition | Opposition, though late, should have been considered; record otherwise shows material facts to dispute | Summary judgment proper on the undisputed record | Yes, remand for merits review and reconsideration of the summary judgment on the full record |
| Whether the district court’s conduct warrants reversal on attorney’s fees | Fees should not have been awarded given procedural errors | Fees were proper | Not resolved on this appeal; remanded for further proceedings on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Bateman v. U.S. Postal Serv., 231 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 2000) (four-factor Pioneer/Briones analysis for Rule 60(b) excusable neglect)
- Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380 (U.S. 1993) (establishes four-factor excusable neglect test)
- Briones v. Riviera Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d 379 (9th Cir. 1997) (applies Pioneer/Briones balancing in Rule 60(b) context)
- Pincay v. Andrews (en banc), 389 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2004) (rejects per se rules; requires Pioneer balancing)
- Lemoge v. United States, 587 F.3d 1188 (9th Cir. 2009) (cautions against rigid rules under Pioneer/Briones)
- Hinkson v. United States (en banc), 585 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 2009) (affirms need for full Rule 60(b) analysis)