Crichlow v. Blue 449, Inc.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:19-cv-07587
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Crichlow v. Blue 449, Judge Furman extended Blue 449’s response deadline, vacated the show-cause order, and canceled the hearing.
Blue 449, Inc. received more time to answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise respond to the complaint. The plaintiff was affected by the cancellation of the scheduled hearing and the vacating of the earlier show-cause order.
What happened
In Crichlow v. Blue 449, Inc., Blue 449 did not answer or otherwise respond to the complaint by the required deadline. The court ordered the company to explain the delay and later scheduled proceedings about a possible default judgment.
Before the plaintiff filed a default-judgment motion, Blue 449 appeared and asked for more time to respond. The court applied the rule allowing an extension after a deadline has passed when there is good cause and the failure resulted from excusable neglect, such as inadvertence or carelessness. The court found that the delay was relatively minor, had not prejudiced the plaintiff, and was partly connected to problems receiving earlier court orders.
Judge Furman granted the extension. He vacated the earlier show-cause order, canceled the January 16, 2020 hearing, and extended Blue 449’s deadline to answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise respond to December 13, 2019.
The detailed version
- Crichlow v. Blue 449, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-07587
- Jesse Furman
- Dec. 2, 2019
Background
The plaintiff sued NY State Division of Human Rights and other defendants, including Blue 449, Inc. The court had ordered Blue 449 to explain why it had not answered or otherwise responded to the complaint. The Clerk mailed that order to the address where Blue 449 had been served with the summons and complaint.
Blue 449 did not respond by the November 11, 2019 deadline. The court then scheduled briefing and a hearing concerning a possible default judgment. Before the plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment, Blue 449 appeared and requested an extension of its time to answer or otherwise respond.
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 court explained that excusable neglect may include delay caused by inadvertence, mistake, or carelessness when the delay was not long, the opposing party was not prejudiced, and the explanation has some merit.
Court’s analysis
The court concluded that Blue 449’s delay resulted from inadvertence, mistake, or carelessness, including issues involving service of the court’s earlier orders. It found that the delay was relatively minor and had not prejudiced the plaintiff, particularly given related and ongoing litigation involving similar issues and arguments. The court also noted the Second Circuit’s preference for resolving disputes on their merits when the plaintiff has not been prejudiced.
Ruling
Judge Furman granted Blue 449’s request for an extension. The court vacated its prior Order to Show Cause, canceled the hearing scheduled for January 16, 2020, and extended Blue 449’s deadline to answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise respond to the complaint until December 13, 2019. The Clerk was directed to mail a copy of the order to the plaintiff. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.