Meranelli v. Minnesota Department of Human Services
- Tony Leung
- 0:23-cv-00848
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In Meranelli v. Minnesota Department of Human Services, Judge Leung denied striking Meranelli’s late response but granted defendants more time to reply.
The plaintiff and the defendants were affected: the plaintiff’s late opposition remained on file, and the defendants received until November 2, 2023, to file their reply.
What happened
In Meranelli v. Minnesota Department of Human Services, the plaintiff filed her opposition to the defendants’ motion to dismiss 24 days after the deadline. The defendants asked the court to strike that filing or change the case schedule.
The defendants argued that the plaintiff should have requested permission for a late filing and had not adequately explained the delay. The plaintiff did not respond to this motion, but the record stated that she had not received the court’s case-management order, which set the deadline.
Judge Tony N. Leung denied the request to strike the plaintiff’s response and granted the request to amend the case-management order. The defendants were ordered to file their reply by November 2, 2023, and the motion was granted in part and denied in part.
The detailed version
- Meranelli v. Minnesota Department of Human Services · No. 0:23-cv-00848
- Tony Leung
- Oct. 19, 2023
Background
The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint on July 28, 2023. The case-management order required the plaintiff to respond by August 28, 2023. She filed her opposition on September 21, 2023—24 days late. Because the opposition was late, the defendants could not file their reply by the September 12 deadline set in the case-management order.
The defendants moved to strike the plaintiff’s opposition as untimely or, alternatively, to amend the case-management order so they would have two weeks to file a reply. The plaintiff did not file a response to that motion. The defendants’ meet-and-confer filing stated that the plaintiff had not received the case-management order.
Court’s analysis
The court noted that the plaintiff’s self-represented status did not excuse compliance with court rules, laws, or orders. It warned that future failures could result in sanctions, including dismissal.
The court nevertheless denied the motion to strike. Although the plaintiff had not asked for an extension under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b), the court concluded that she had provided a reason for the late filing: she did not receive the case-management order. The court therefore did not strike her opposition.
For the alternative request, the court applied Rule 6(b)(1)(B), which allows a court to extend a deadline after it has expired when the failure to act resulted from excusable neglect. The court considered prejudice, the length and effect of the delay, the reason for the delay and whether it was within the defendants’ control, and good faith. It found that all four factors favored giving the defendants additional time.
Order
Judge Tony N. Leung ordered that the defendants’ motion to strike the plaintiff’s untimely response, or alternatively to amend the case-management order, was granted in part and denied in part. The defendants were ordered to file their reply to the plaintiff’s opposition to the motion to dismiss on or before November 2, 2023. The plaintiff was again directed to obtain and review the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the District of Minnesota’s local rules. Prior consistent orders remained in effect, and the order listed possible sanctions for future noncompliance.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.