Webb v. City of Minneapolis
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:23-cv-01836
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In Webb v. City of Minneapolis, Judge Menendez allowed Webb to file a late response to defendants’ pleadings motion and set briefing deadlines.
Robert Webb may file his late response to the defendants’ motion within 14 days. The City of Minneapolis, Tser Cheng, and Christopher Lange may file a reply within 14 days after Webb’s response. The defendants’ underlying motion was not decided by this order.
What happened
In Webb v. City of Minneapolis, Robert Webb missed the deadline to respond to the defendants’ motion asking the court to rule based on the pleadings. Webb asked for permission to file his response late.
Webb’s lawyer said an office intern who calendared motions had left and that the lawyer had COVID-19 symptoms for more than two weeks. The defendants argued that the lawyer knew about the motion and should have acted sooner. The court found no unfair prejudice, only a short delay, and no bad faith.
Judge Menendez granted Webb’s request to file the late response but did not decide the defendants’ motion. Webb must respond within 14 days, and the defendants may reply within 14 days after that response is filed.
The detailed version
- Webb v. City of Minneapolis · No. 0:23-cv-01836
- Katherine Menendez
- Apr. 17, 2024
Background
Robert Webb sued the City of Minneapolis and other defendants. The City, Tser Cheng, and Christopher Lange filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). A judgment-on-the-pleadings motion asks the court to decide a case based on the allegations and other permitted pleadings, without a trial.
Webb’s response was due February 2, 2024, but he did not file it on time. The court canceled the scheduled hearing and asked the parties to address whether the deadline should be extended under Rule 6(b)(1)(B), which allows an extension after a deadline has passed for excusable neglect.
Arguments about the missed deadline
Webb’s counsel attributed the missed deadline to the departure of the office intern responsible for calendaring motions and to counsel’s COVID-19 illness and lasting symptoms. Counsel acknowledged that he failed to calendar the motion.
The defendants argued that counsel knew the motion was about to be filed, communicated with defense counsel around the filing date, and had opportunities to request an extension or take other steps. The court found that these circumstances weighed slightly against excusable neglect.
The court nevertheless found that the lack of prejudice to the defendants, the short delay, the absence of bad faith, and the preference for deciding disputes with input from both sides supported granting the request. The court also considered the realities of counsel’s small practice, while noting that procedural rules do not create exceptions for solo practitioners.
Ruling
The court granted Webb permission to file an untimely response to the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court did not rule on that motion in this order.
Webb must file his response within 14 days of April 17, 2024. The defendants must file any reply within 14 days after Webb’s response is filed. After receiving the permitted briefing, the court will decide whether to hold a hearing or resolve the motion based on the written submissions.
The order also notes that other named defendants include Minneapolis Police Officers Robert Calhoun and Luke Bakken. The defendants stated that no Minneapolis Police Department officer named Robert Calhoun exists and that Luke Bakken is deceased; neither had been served with the summons and complaint.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.