Escamilla v. Miranda

Background

Defendants Lidia Miranda and Michael’s Grill and Taqueria, Inc. moved for permission to file a late reply brief supporting their motion to dismiss. Plaintiff Jose Luis Barajas Escamilla did not oppose the motion.

The defendants’ reply was about two months late. The local rules required a reply by November 23, 2023, and the court’s scheduling order set December 8, 2023, as the deadline. The defendants attributed the delay to counsel’s misunderstanding and failure to forward the court’s briefing-schedule notice to co-counsel.

Legal Standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B), a court may extend an expired deadline when the party’s failure resulted from “excusable neglect.” The court considered four factors: possible prejudice to the opposing party, the length and effect of the delay, the reason for the delay, and whether the party acted in good faith.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that allowing the late reply would not prejudice the plaintiff because the plaintiff would not ordinarily be entitled to respond to a reply brief and would not face a delay in filing his own papers. Although the delay was about two months, the court found that it would not affect the proceedings because the hearing on the motion to dismiss was not scheduled until April, leaving time to review the reply.

The court found the explanation adequate. Counsel had calendared deadlines based on what they believed were the applicable rules, and one defense lawyer failed to forward the court’s briefing-schedule order to co-counsel. The court described this as careless and negligent conduct that nevertheless amounted to excusable neglect.

The court said the defendants’ good faith was a close question because it had previously admonished them for violating standing orders and local rules concerning motion format and length. But the court found that the defendants had not repeatedly missed court deadlines and that their lawyers had simply misunderstood the applicable deadlines. It therefore concluded that the defendants were not acting in bad faith.

Ruling

Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted the defendants’ Motion for Leave to File a Late Reply Brief, ECF No. 33. The court ordered the defendants to file their reply supporting the motion to dismiss no later than February 5, 2024. The order did not rule on the motion to dismiss itself.