Rowe, MD, MHA, LLC v. Aetna Health and Life Insurance Company
- Rochon
- 1:22-cv-08713
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Rowe, MD, MHA, LLC v. Aetna Health and Life Insurance Company, Judge Rochon terminated duplicate motions about plaintiffs’ late filing.
The plaintiffs’ request concerning a late-filed response and the docket status of motions 58 and 62 were affected. The order does not state a ruling on the underlying claims.
What happened
In Rowe, MD, MHA, LLC v. Aetna Health and Life Insurance Company, the plaintiffs asked for permission to file their response to an order to show cause after the filing deadline. They said the response had been served on defense counsel on time but could not be filed because of confusion about the electronic filing system.
The plaintiffs argued that the short delay resulted from a technical misunderstanding, caused no prejudice, and reflected good-faith efforts to comply with the deadline. They requested permission to file the response on January 13, 2025.
The court stated that the document was a duplicate of an earlier letter and directed the clerk to terminate motions 58 and 62. Judge Rochon’s order does not state that the request for an extension was granted or denied.
The detailed version
- Rowe, MD, MHA, LLC v. Aetna Health and Life Insurance Company · No. 1:22-cv-08713
- Rochon
- Jan. 23, 2025
Background
The plaintiffs, identified in the opinion’s caption as Norman Maurice Rowe, M.D., M.H.A., L.L.C. and East Coast Plastic Surgery, P.C., submitted a letter seeking permission to file a response to an order to show cause after the January 10, 2025 deadline. Their counsel said the response was prepared and served on defense counsel by the deadline, but counsel could not complete the electronic filing because of a misunderstanding about which filing category to use. Counsel also said the court’s electronic-filing help desk was unavailable until January 13, 2025.
Plaintiffs’ Position
The plaintiffs relied on the rule allowing a court to extend an expired deadline when the late filing resulted from “excusable neglect.” They argued that the delay was negligible, caused no prejudice, had little effect on the proceedings, and resulted from a technical filing problem rather than a lack of diligence. They asked to file the response on January 13, 2025.
Court’s Action
The order states that the document appeared to be a duplicate of a letter previously filed at docket entry 58 and that the issue had been addressed by Judge Wang at docket entry 6. It directed the clerk to terminate motions at docket entries 58 and 62. The order does not expressly grant or deny the plaintiffs’ request for permission to file late, and it does not decide the underlying dispute between the parties. Judge Jennifer L. Rochon signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.