Sweeney v. BDO USA, LLP
- Gregory Woods
- 1:19-cv-07389
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Sweeney v. BDO USA, LLP, Judge Woods denied BDO’s motion to strike Sweeney’s late reply but warned both sides about court deadlines.
Dennis Sweeney and BDO USA, LLP: the court allowed Sweeney’s late reply to stand, denied BDO’s motion to strike, and warned both sides about complying with court deadlines.
What happened
In Sweeney v. BDO USA, LLP, Dennis Sweeney filed a motion to dismiss BDO’s second amended counterclaim. The court’s schedule made Sweeney’s reply due January 21, 2020, but Sweeney filed it on January 22.
BDO USA, LLP asked the court to strike the reply because it was late. BDO argued that missing a court-ordered deadline justified removing the filing from consideration.
Judge Gregory Woods denied the application and declined to strike the reply, even though it was untimely. He reminded BDO to meet court-imposed deadlines and warned Sweeney that future failures to follow court orders could lead to sanctions.
The detailed version
- Sweeney v. BDO USA, LLP · No. 1:19-cv-07389
- Gregory Woods
- Jan. 28, 2020
Background
Dennis Sweeney moved to dismiss BDO USA, LLP’s second amended counterclaim. On December 26, 2019, the court ordered that BDO’s opposition was due January 13, 2020, and that Sweeney’s reply, if any, was due one week after BDO’s opposition was served.
The opinion states that the seven-day period after January 13 ended on January 20, 2020, a federal holiday. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a)(1), the deadline moved to January 21, 2020. Sweeney filed the reply on January 22, 2020.
Motion to Strike
BDO moved to strike Sweeney’s reply as untimely. BDO relied on the court’s authority under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 to manage its proceedings and on decisions stating that a court may strike or decline to consider filings that miss court-imposed deadlines.
Ruling
Judge Gregory Woods denied the application. Although the court agreed that Sweeney’s reply was untimely, it exercised its discretion to decline to strike the filing.
The court reminded BDO of its obligation to meet court-imposed deadlines. It also warned Sweeney that failing to comply with court orders in the future could result in sanctions.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.