Devashrayee v. Union Pacific Railroad Company

Background

Jeffrey J. Devashrayee filed the action in California state court on May 4, 2022. Union Pacific Railroad Company removed it to federal district court on June 24, 2022, and filed a motion to transfer venue on July 1. The motion was set for a hearing on August 12, 2022.

Under the district’s local rules, Devashrayee’s opposition was due July 15. Union Pacific later filed a notice stating that Devashrayee had not opposed the motion or otherwise responded.

Motion to Extend Time

Devashrayee moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B) for permission to file a late opposition and to continue the hearing. His counsel declared that he attempted to check the docket on July 25, learned that his electronic court-access account had been temporarily deactivated, and asked a colleague to check the docket. Counsel then learned about the transfer motion and discovered that he had received, but had inadvertently failed to open and review, court email notifications about the case.

The court explained that “excusable neglect” includes careless failures to act and requires consideration of the relevant circumstances. Those circumstances include possible prejudice to the opposing party, the length and effect of the delay, the reason for the delay and whether it was within the movant’s control, and good faith.

Ruling

The court described counsel’s explanation as weak. It noted that counsel did not explain why he waited about a month after removal to check the docket or why he failed to notice emails from the court. But Union Pacific did not show or suggest that it would be prejudiced by a hearing several weeks later, and there was no evidence that counsel acted in bad faith. The court also found that the delay was short: the motion to extend was filed eleven days after the opposition deadline and one day after counsel learned about the transfer motion.

The court found that Devashrayee’s failure to oppose the transfer motion on time resulted from excusable neglect and granted the motion. It extended the opposition deadline to August 12, 2022, extended the reply deadline to August 26, 2022, and continued the hearing from August 12, 2022, to September 9, 2022, at 9:00 a.m.