Bromfield-Thompson v. American University of Antigua/Manipal Education Americas
Bromfield-Thompson v. American University of Antigua/Manipal Education Americas, LLC
- Jesse Furman
- 1:19-cv-06078
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Bromfield-Thompson v. American University, Judge Furman extended defendants’ response deadline after finding excusable neglect and no prejudice.
The order directly affected Plaintiff Debbie Ann Bromfield-Thompson, Defendants American University of Antigua and Manipal Education Americas, LLC, and the other defendants’ response and briefing deadlines.
What happened
Debbie Ann Bromfield-Thompson sued American University of Antigua and other defendants. The court had ordered American University and Manipal Education Americas, LLC—separate entities mistakenly identified as one in the complaint—to explain why they had not responded. They appeared, explained the delay, and asked for more time.
The court found that the delay resulted from carelessness or mistake, was not lengthy, and had not harmed Bromfield-Thompson. It therefore extended the time for American University and Manipal to answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise respond. The court also set schedules for possible consolidated or separate responses and any amended complaint.
Judge Jesse M. Furman issued the order on November 18, 2019. The order granted the request for additional time but did not decide the underlying claims or the pending motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Bromfield-Thompson v. American University of Antigua/Manipal Education Americas · No. 1:19-cv-06078
- Jesse Furman
- Nov. 18, 2019
Background
On October 31, 2019, the court ordered American University of Antigua and Manipal Education Americas, LLC to show why they had failed to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint. The order noted that the complaint had misidentified those defendants as a single entity. By November 14, 2019, both defendants had appeared, explained their failure to respond, and requested an extension of time.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B) allows a court to extend a deadline after it has expired when the party shows good cause and excusable neglect. The opinion explains that excusable neglect can include delay caused by inadvertence, mistake, or carelessness, particularly when the delay was short, did not prejudice the opposing party, and had a reasonably valid explanation.
Ruling
The court concluded that the defendants’ delay resulted from inadvertence, mistake, or carelessness and that Bromfield-Thompson had not been prejudiced. The court also noted that the case had continued through a motion to dismiss by another defendant raising similar arguments. Judge Jesse M. Furman therefore concluded that good cause existed and extended American University’s and Manipal’s time to respond.
The court ordered all defendants to confer and submit a joint letter stating whether they could combine their responses in one amended motion to dismiss or answer. It established different deadlines depending on whether the defendants could consolidate their responses. The order also set deadlines for a possible amended complaint, opposition papers, and replies, and stated that Bromfield-Thompson would not receive another opportunity to amend the complaint to address issues raised in the motions to dismiss.
The order did not resolve the merits of Bromfield-Thompson’s claims or decide the pending motion to dismiss. It directed the Clerk to mail a copy of the order to Bromfield-Thompson.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.