Somosky v. Consumer Data Industry Association

Background

The plaintiff asked the court to accept an amended complaint filed after the deadline. Under an earlier order, the amended complaint was due September 17, 2020, but it was filed at 3:05 a.m. on September 18—approximately three hours late. The defendant stated that it did not intend to oppose the request, and the deadline for opposing the motion passed.

The plaintiff’s lawyer attributed the delay to technical problems while preparing the amended complaint. Counsel stated that, after combining versions of the complaint and researching and rewriting the document, Word or Adobe crashed, the text became corrupted, and counsel had to reconstruct the amended complaint from memory. Counsel also stated that the plaintiff had not previously requested an extension in this case.

Rule and Requested Relief

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B) allows a court to extend a deadline after it has expired when the party failed to act because of “excusable neglect.” The letter discussed the factors identified in Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates, Ltd. Partnership: the reason for the delay, the length of the delay and its effect on the proceedings, possible prejudice to the opposing party, and whether the party acted in good faith. It also discussed the Rule 6(b) requirement of good cause and the federal courts’ preference for deciding cases on their merits rather than on technical deadline violations.

Ruling

The court ordered: “Plaintiff is granted leave to file the amended complaint despite its lateness.” Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil therefore granted permission for the late amended complaint to be filed. The order did not rule on the merits of the plaintiff’s underlying claims.