Triton Pacific Securities, LLC v. Mission Critical Services Corp.
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:19-cv-05789
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Triton Pacific Securities v. Mission Critical Services, Judge Engelmayer accepted Triton’s late amended motion and reset briefing deadlines.
Triton Pacific Securities, LLC, Mission Critical Services Corp., Triton Pacific Investment Corporation, Inc., Triton Pacific Adviser, LLC, and their counsel were affected by the revised briefing schedule and related filing requirements.
What happened
Triton Pacific Securities, LLC sued Mission Critical Services Corp., which filed counterclaims and later a third-party complaint against two Triton affiliates. Triton had already moved to dismiss some counterclaims and sought permission to file an amended dismissal motion after missing a court-ordered deadline.
Triton’s lawyer blamed the missed deadline on a paralegal’s failure to pass along a court order. The court rejected that explanation and said counsel must regularly monitor the case docket. But the court found that the recently served third-party complaint created a separate reason to coordinate the related motions and avoid duplicated work.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer accepted Triton’s amended motion as timely, revised the briefing schedule, required counsel to file electronic-notification certifications, and directed the parties to address whether discovery should proceed. The order did not decide the merits of the motions to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Triton Pacific Securities, LLC v. Mission Critical Services Corp. · No. 1:19-cv-05789
- Paul Engelmayer
- Dec. 6, 2019
Background
Triton Pacific Securities, LLC sued Mission Critical Services Corp. Mission Critical filed an answer and counterclaims. Triton moved to dismiss six counterclaims and requested a more definite statement—a request for clarification—concerning three others. The court directed Mission Critical either to amend its counterclaims or oppose the motion.
Mission Critical’s president later wrote to the court without a lawyer, requesting more time while the company obtained new counsel. The court gave Mission Critical three weeks to secure counsel and extended other deadlines. New counsel then appeared. Mission Critical filed an answer to Triton’s amended complaint that included counterclaims and a third-party complaint against Triton Pacific Investment Corporation, Inc. and Triton Pacific Adviser, LLC. The third-party complaint was served on November 26, 2019.
Motion and Analysis
Triton filed a letter that went beyond merely stating that it relied on its earlier motion to dismiss. The court directed Triton either to file a new motion or confirm that it relied on the earlier motion. After Triton did not respond by the court’s deadline, the court concluded that Triton was relying on its earlier motion and directed the briefing to proceed. Triton then filed an amended motion to dismiss and sought an extension of time after the deadline had passed.
Triton’s counsel explained that a paralegal had not communicated the court’s order. The court rejected that explanation as a basis for relief, emphasizing that counsel—not a paralegal—has the responsibility to monitor the docket. The court also rejected Triton’s argument that Mission Critical suffered no meaningful prejudice, noting that Mission Critical had been told not to act on Triton’s earlier letter until Triton provided clarification.
The court nevertheless found an independent reason to revise the schedule: Mission Critical had recently served the third-party complaint on two Triton affiliates, which intended to file motions to dismiss on substantially similar grounds and were represented by Triton’s counsel. Coordinating the briefing would avoid duplicated work.
Ruling
The court accepted Triton’s amended motion to dismiss as timely filed despite its late submission. It set a revised schedule requiring Mission Critical to file one opposition brief addressing Triton’s amended motion and any pre-answer motion filed by the third-party defendants by January 3, 2020. The moving parties were required to file a combined reply by January 10, 2020.
The court also ordered Triton and Mission Critical to file a joint letter by January 10, 2020, stating their views on whether the principal case should proceed to discovery while the motions concerning the counterclaims and third-party complaint were pending. By December 9, 2019, Richard Milin was required to enter a notice of appearance, and Richard Milin and Scott Griffin were required to file affidavits certifying that they had registered to receive electronic case notifications personally. The clerk was directed to close the motions at Docket 9 and Docket 29.
This order addressed scheduling and filing issues. It did not decide whether Mission Critical’s counterclaims or the third-party complaint should be dismissed.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.