US v. Certain Real Property in Waterboro, Civ. No. 90-0224 P.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Court (Maine)
Writing for the CourtGENE CARTER
Citation812 F. Supp. 259
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY IN WATERBORO, et al., Defendants.
Docket NumberCiv. No. 90-0224 P.
Decision Date06 February 1991

812 F. Supp. 259

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,

Civ. No. 90-0224 P.

United States District Court, D. Maine.

February 6, 1991.

Jonathan Chapman, Asst. U.S. Atty., Portland, ME, for plaintiff.

Richard Romeo, Smith & Elliott, P.A., Portland, ME, for defendants.

GENE CARTER, Chief Judge.


In this action the United States seeks forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1) and 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6) of four parcels of land, with all appurtenances and improvements thereon, and three vehicles. On December 26, 1990, Claimant Patrick Cunan filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in rem. The Government did not file an objection to the motion, but on January 15, 1991, filed a "Memorandum in Opposition to Claimant Patrick Cunan's Motion to Dismiss Complaint."

812 F. Supp. 260

Local Rule 19(c), entitled "Objections to Motions," provides:

Unless within 10 days after the filing of a motion the opposing party files a written objection thereto, he shall be deemed to have waived objection. Every party filing an objection shall file with the objection a separate memorandum of law, in duplicate, including citations of supporting authorities and, except as provided in Rule 16(g), affidavits and other documents setting forth or evidencing facts on which the objection is based. The deemed waiver imposed herein shall not apply to motions filed during trial.

As noted above, the Government did not file a written objection to Claimant's Motion to Dismiss. Even if the Court were to deem the memorandum of law that was filed an adequate objection to the motion, it was untimely.

In one of the most recent of many explanations of the operation of Local Rule 19 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6, dealing with time, the Court stated:

Under local practice, three days are added to the time periods prescribed in Local Rule 19 to allow for receipt of the prior pleading by mail. Grover v. Commercial Insurance Co., 104 F.R.D. 136, 138 (D.Me.1985). As previously expressed in Coles Express v. New England Teamsters & Trucking Industry Pension Fund, 702 F.Supp. 355 (D.Me.1988) (Cyr, J.), the Court concurs with a majority of courts that have calculated a party's total response period by beginning with the prescribed response period, excluding weekends and holidays, and then adding three mailing days. See Tushner v. U.S. District Court, 829 F.2d 853 (9th Cir. 1987); National

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Southern District of Texas
    • February 28, 1994
    ...Cardente v. Fleet Bank of Maine, Inc., 146 F.R.D. 13, 21 (D.Me.1993); United States v. Certain Real Property in Waterboro, et al., 812 F.Supp. 259, 260 (D.Me. 1991); Andrew Corp. v. Gabriel Electronics, Inc., 735 F.Supp. 24, 26 n. 1 The Court notes that although the Nalty court made its rul......
  • Perry v. Strategic Realty Capital, LLC, CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-1799-JWD-EWD
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Middle District of Louisiana
    • January 30, 2019 order of the Court, the last day of the period fell" on the following Monday); cf. United States v. Certain Real Prop. in Waterboro, 812 F. Supp. 259, 260 (D. Me. 1991) (noting, "The Court has excluded December 31, 1991, as though it were a holiday because the Court was closed for busine......
  • Latham v. Dominick's Finer Foods, 98-1392
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • July 14, 1998
    ...exclude any day on which the district court is either officially closed (as held in United States v. Certain Real Property in Waterboro, 812 F.Supp. 259, 260 n. 1 (D.Me.1991), and Epperly v. Lehmann Co., 161 F.R.D. 72, 76 (S.D.Ind.1994)), as here, or (as also here) inaccessible as a practic......
  • Tice v. Pro Football, Inc., Civ. A. No. 91-2314 (RCL).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • February 10, 1993 that point for the plaintiffs in the Tice case. There is also a serious question as to the propriety of Mr. Quinn's communicating 812 F. Supp. 259 with Tice plaintiffs who were then represented by Mr. CONCLUSION In light of the arguments plaintiffs raise and these issues, it is evident t......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT