Management Registry, Inc. v. A.W. Companies, Inc.
- John Tunheim
- 0:17-cv-05009
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 7
In Management Registry v. A.W. Companies, Judge Menendez allowed a late dismissal brief and denied the motion to strike it.
The order affected Management Registry, Inc. and the defendants referred to as A.W. Companies, Inc. (AWCI), by allowing AWCI to use its late-filed dismissal memorandum and denying MRI’s request to strike it.
What happened
In Management Registry, Inc. v. A.W. Companies, Inc., the defendants filed a motion to dismiss but initially failed to file the required supporting legal brief on time. They later filed the brief and asked for permission to do so late.
Management Registry asked the court to strike the late brief, arguing that the defendants had filed it without first obtaining permission. The defendants argued that the late filing resulted from an error and should be allowed.
Judge Menendez granted the defendants’ request to file the late brief and denied Management Registry’s motion to strike. The court found excusable neglect, no unfair prejudice to Management Registry, and extended the deadlines for responding to the dismissal motion.
The detailed version
- Management Registry, Inc. v. A.W. Companies, Inc. · No. 0:17-cv-05009
- John Tunheim
- Aug. 6, 2019
Background
The court considered two non-dispositive motions concerning briefing on the defendants’ motion to dismiss and motion to strike. The defendants, referred to as AWCI in the order, filed a motion for permission to submit a supporting memorandum after the deadline. Management Registry, referred to as MRI, moved to strike that memorandum.
The court had set July 26, 2019, as the deadline for AWCI to file an answer or motion to dismiss and August 9, 2019, as the deadline for MRI’s response. AWCI filed its motion to dismiss and motion to strike on July 24, but it filed a supporting memorandum for the motion to dismiss on July 30, after the deadline. AWCI also filed a motion asking permission for the late filing.
MRI argued that AWCI violated the local rule requiring a motion and supporting memorandum to be filed at the same time. MRI asked the court to strike the memorandum. AWCI attributed the missed deadline to a filing mistake and argued that the memorandum should be accepted.
Court’s analysis
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B), a party seeking additional time after a deadline has expired must show excusable neglect. The court considered the possible prejudice to MRI, the length and effect of the delay, the reason for the delay and whether it was within AWCI’s control, and whether AWCI acted in good faith.
The court found that AWCI’s failure to file the memorandum on time appeared to result from a simple mistake. The court questioned and criticized defense counsel’s explanation that a technical problem with the electronic filing system caused the problem, stating that the cited helpdesk email did not support that explanation. Even so, the court stated that filing errors may be excused when they are promptly corrected and noted that it generally prefers resolving disputes on their merits.
The court also found no unfair prejudice to MRI. Without the late memorandum, AWCI’s motion to dismiss would have no supporting legal argument and would be denied without consideration of the defendants’ challenge to the sufficiency of the new pleadings. The court adjusted MRI’s response deadline, curing any prejudice from a shortened response period.
Ruling
Judge Menendez granted AWCI’s “Motion for Leave to File Instanter” and denied MRI’s “Motion to Strike Defendants’ Proffered Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss.” The order did not decide the underlying motion to dismiss or the merits of the parties’ claims.
The court set August 23, 2019, as the deadline for MRI’s response to the motion to dismiss. It allowed AWCI to file a reply memorandum, or a notice stating that it would not file one, by August 30, 2019. The court also urged the parties’ counsel to end the acrimonious exchanges it said were creating additional work and to work toward resolving the case on its merits.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.