Fiona v. Risso

Background

Plaintiffs filed a motion to strike affirmative defenses on May 21, 2025. Under the applicable local rule, Defendant’s opposition was due June 4, 2025. Defendant did not file an opposition by that deadline. On July 2, 2025, the Court submitted the motion without oral argument and vacated the hearing. Defendant filed an application the next day asking the Court to reopen briefing.

Parties’ positions

Defendant explained that counsel had objected to the motion’s timeliness by email and expected Plaintiffs’ counsel to file a second amended complaint that would make the motion to strike unnecessary. Counsel therefore failed to calendar the opposition deadline. Plaintiffs argued that Defendant had not properly presented the objection, and that his expectation about an amended complaint was unreasonable. Plaintiffs nevertheless stated that they did not object to allowing Defendant to respond.

Court’s analysis

The Court treated the request as an extension-of-time issue under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B), which permits an extension after a deadline has passed for good cause when the failure resulted from excusable neglect. The Court considered four factors: potential prejudice to Plaintiffs, the length and effect of the delay, the reason for the delay, and whether Defendant acted in good faith.

The Court found little risk of prejudice because Plaintiffs did not oppose allowing a response. It also found that the delay would have little effect on the case because Defendant would receive only a short extension and the schedule still provided substantial time before dispositive-motion deadlines. The Court described counsel’s calendaring mistake as a weak explanation but not so serious that Defendant should lose the opportunity to oppose a significant motion. The Court also found no indication of bad faith because counsel acted within 24 hours after realizing the deadline had been missed.

The Court set aside Defendant’s separate argument that the motion to strike lacked merit because that argument addressed the motion’s merits rather than the request to reopen briefing.

Order

The Court granted Defendant’s request to reopen briefing on the motion to strike affirmative defenses. Defendant may file an opposition brief by July 18, 2025, and Plaintiffs may file a reply by July 25, 2025. The order did not resolve the motion to strike itself.