TSI USA LLC v. Uber Technologies Inc

Background

Uber moved for attorneys’ fees and costs after TSI failed to oppose Uber’s motion to dismiss TSI’s fraud and defamation claims, as well as its requests for attorneys’ fees and exemplary damages in its Second Amended Complaint. TSI also missed the deadline to oppose Uber’s fee motion. The court noted several earlier missed deadlines, including deadlines involving motions to dismiss, filing the Second Amended Complaint, and retaining local counsel.

TSI then asked for permission to file a late opposition, nearly seven weeks after the deadline. TSI’s counsel, Steven Shebar, said that unexpected family matters beginning October 10, 2019, prevented a timely filing. Uber opposed TSI’s request.

Late opposition

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6, a court may extend an expired deadline when a party’s failure to act resulted from excusable neglect. The court considers factors including prejudice, the length and effect of the delay, the reason for the delay, and good faith.

The court found excusable neglect. It concluded that the family emergency was unanticipated and significant, the fee dispute was separate from the merits of the case, and the delay would not prevent the parties from preparing for later deadlines. The court therefore granted TSI’s motion for leave to file its opposition and treated the opposition as filed.

Attorneys’ fees and costs

The court found that TSI’s counsel’s repeated failure to meet court deadlines had delayed the proceedings and caused Uber and the court to spend unnecessary time and resources. The court determined that TSI should compensate Uber for reasonable fees caused by TSI’s failure to timely file a statement that it did not oppose the motion to dismiss.

The court granted in part Uber’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs for fees incurred in preparing:

- Uber’s reply supporting its unopposed motion to dismiss; - Uber’s response concerning the court’s order to show cause; - Uber’s motion for attorneys’ fees, through the time spent preparing a supplemental declaration; and - Uber’s response to TSI’s motion for leave to file a late opposition.

The court could not determine the reasonable fees for those specific tasks from Uber’s existing declaration because the requested hours appeared to cover all work performed from April through September 2019. The court therefore required Uber to submit a supplemental declaration.

The court required further briefing on Uber’s request for fees incurred in preparing the unopposed motion to dismiss itself. TSI argued that it had amended its allegations in good faith and as directed by the court. The court stated that Uber had not yet shown that filing the Second Amended Complaint involved willful disobedience of a court order warranting fees, and it gave Uber an opportunity to respond to TSI’s argument.

Order

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. directed Uber to file the supplemental declaration and reply brief by January 17, 2020. The order did not state a final dollar amount for the fees requiring further support and briefing.