守時

自己是一個十分之守時的人，往往約了朋友都會做10 - 15 mins到。從前有一些中學的舊同學，約佢地真係「火」都黎埋。點解？原因就是遲到。不是10-15mins，而是1-2 hrs．．．

香港人很喜歡遲到，十到十五分鐘都是等閒事。以前踢波，book了埸3pm - 5pm，兩個鐘頭鬥波，但係d人就3:15pm先到。連熱身都沒有就落場踢，你估自己是球王乎？

當年跟前香港代表「水佬」學踢波，第一樣就是準時到。有些人遲到，你就沒有得落場踢。一來沒有熱身很容易受傷，二來落到埸你都跟不上埸波d節奏。

今年上PCLL，很多同學（特別係一些從外地返來的同學）很唔喜歡一個老師，原因是佢唔喜歡人遲到。一遲到，就warning人，如果第三次就會report去programme leader度。我自己就覺得很應該，講真上那堂已經是2:00pm先些，早上都已經上了一堂，lunch time成二個鐘，真係無什麼借口可以遲到。

讀Civil Procedure度有讀過遲左deadline，係有很多consequence的，例如default judgment，Dismissal for want of prosecution等。今日看到Wall Street Journal一單新聞，個律師只是遲了一分鐘filing就令client唔見了$1 Million美金。不知到遲d佢會唔會俾client sue for negligence呢？

January 8, 2008, 9:19 am

A Litigator’s Nightmare: Late Filing Costs Client $1 Million

Posted by Peter Lattman

It’s a litigator’s worst dream — costing your client serious money by missing a filing deadline.

That nightmare was a reality for MoFo and another small SoCal firm, which appears to have cost its client Toshiba America $1 million when it was one-minute late — 1 minute! — in filing a motion for attorneys fees. (The nightmare was was first reported by the Daily Journal.) A judgment in favor of MoFo’s client was entered on Sept. 26, giving Toshiba’s attorneys 14 days - until Oct. 10 - to file their attorneys-fees motion. Here are the relevant paragraphs straight from Judge Cormac Carney’s opinion. For anyone trying to meet a filing deadline, they might make your choke on your Cheerios:

Here, [Toshiba’s] purported reason for its delay is that its courier was caught in traffic at 3:30 in the afternoon in Santa Ana, California. Mr. Mersel, attorney for [Toshiba], asserts that he waited until 3:14 p.m. on the last day of the filing period to deliver the motion to Morrison & Foerster’s regular courier service. Mr. Mersel asserts that although he was aware that the filing deadline was 4:00 p.m., he had “never had a problem with getting papers filed by 4:00 p.m. when delivering them to the attorney service” forty-five minutes in advance. The courier, Mr. Moskus, swiftly responded to Mr. Mersel’s request, leaving on his motorcycle for the courthouse at approximately 3:30 p.m. Unfortunately, Mr. Moskus encountered “unusually heavy traffic” and had to “wait at the railroad crossing on Grand Avenue for a long train to pass.” Consequently, Mr. Moskus arrived at the Courthouse after the office had closed and Mr. Mersel was unable to file the motion until the following day, on October 11, 2007.
These circumstances, however regrettable, do not meet the standard for “excusable neglect.” Although the delay was not lengthy and it does not appear that [defendant] was prejudiced by it, the reason for the delay was entirely within [Toshiba’s] control and [Toshiba] has not offered a good faith reason for the delay.

Concluded the judge: “[T]he entirely foreseeable obstacle of traffic in Southern California in the late afternoon . . . cannot justify an enlargement of time.”

The Law Blog contacted Mark Mersel, who left MoFo for Bryan Cave last week. He responded in an email that “the client has asked us not to comment.” Dean Zipser, MoFo’s Orange County managing partner who oversaw the litigation, did not respond to a request of comment.