Herrington Technology LLC v. CenturyLink, Inc.
- James Oetken
- 1:19-cv-06828
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Herrington Technology v. Century Link: Judge Oetken denied without prejudice the request to reopen a case dismissed for failure to prosecute.
Herrington Technology LLC must obtain a law firm to enter an appearance and file a new motion addressing Rule 60(b); the case remains closed unless the court later grants reopening.
What happened
Herrington Technology LLC asked the court to reopen its case against Century Link, Inc. after the case was dismissed for failure to prosecute. It also requested until March 15, 2020, to find new lawyers.
The company said the dismissal resulted from a communication oversight and from its belief that emailing a law firm’s court-notices address counted as emailing the court. The court found that these facts did not establish excusable neglect under the applicable rule.
Judge J. Paul Oetken denied the motion to reopen without prejudice. He directed Herrington to have a law firm formally enter the case by March 15, 2020, and to file a new reopening motion addressing the required legal showing.
The detailed version
- Herrington Technology LLC v. CenturyLink, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-06828
- James Oetken
- Feb. 14, 2020
Background
On January 8, 2020, the court dismissed the action for failure to prosecute. Herrington Technology LLC then moved to reopen the case and requested an extension until March 15, 2020, to obtain new representation.
Legal standard
The court considered Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1), which permits relief from a dismissal for reasons including mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. The opinion states that courts distinguish excusable from inexcusable neglect partly by considering whether the plaintiff or counsel could control the circumstances that caused the breakdown. The decision whether to grant relief is within the trial court’s discretion.
Court’s analysis
Herrington submitted two letters. One described the problem only as a “communication oversight.” The other said Herrington believed that sending an email to “courtnotices@kasowitz.com” was enough to satisfy a requirement for electronic communication with the court. The court concluded that Herrington had not shown excusable neglect on these facts.
Disposition
The court denied the motion to reopen without prejudice. It directed Herrington to have a law firm enter an appearance by March 15, 2020, and to file a motion to reopen that addresses the required showing under Rule 60(b).
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.