The following excerpt is from Nealey v. Transportacion Maritima Mexicana, S. A., 662 F.2d 1275 (9th Cir. 1980):
Although this alone should have been enough to defeat the motion, appellant's counsel nonetheless came forward in the district court and offered an explanation for failing to serve appellees promptly. 14 This excuse, weak though it may have been, was sufficient to trigger appellees' obligation to come forth with some evidence of actual prejudice. In their memorandum to the district court, appellees never suggested that actual prejudice had occurred; they relied solely on appellant's alleged failure to exercise due diligence and on the presumption of prejudice they claimed to result therefrom. 15 Only on this appeal did appellees urge, for the first time, that they had suffered demonstrable injury. For this reason, we need not reach the issue. See Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120, 96 S.Ct. 2868, 2877, 49 L.Ed.2d 826 (1976). However, even if the question were properly before us, the claims of prejudice are not persuasive.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.