United States of America for the use and Benefit of Five Star Electric Corp. v…
United States of America for the use and Benefit of Five Star Electric Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
- Laura Swain
- 1:15-cv-04961-LTS-JLC
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 11
In Five Star Electric v. Liberty Mutual, Judge Swain denied Five Star’s motion to file late objections because the delay was not excusable.
Five Star’s request to file late objections was denied, so the court did not consider its objections to the order refusing permission to add the proposed implied-good-faith claim. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and Cauldwell-Wingate Co., LLC opposed the motion, and the case remained under general pretrial management by Judge Cott.
What happened
United States of America for the use and Benefit of Five Star Electric Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company concerns Five Star’s effort to add a claim against the defendants in a construction-payment dispute. A magistrate judge denied permission to add the claim, and Five Star later sought permission to object after the deadline had passed.
Five Star said its late filing resulted from a misunderstanding between its lawyer and the company, along with difficulties during the COVID-19 pandemic. The defendants opposed the request and argued that Five Star had missed a clear deadline despite being told about it.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the motion as untimely. She found that Five Star had not shown an acceptable reason for the delay and therefore did not consider the merits of Five Star’s objections to the earlier order.
The detailed version
- United States of America for the use and Benefit of Five Star Electric Corp. v… · No. 1:15-cv-04961-LTS-JLC
- Laura Swain
- May 13, 2021
Background
Five Star Electric Corp. sued Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and Cauldwell-Wingate Co., LLC, asserting claims under the Miller Act, a federal payment-bond statute, as well as breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The dispute concerned payment for additional work on a construction project at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse in Manhattan.
Magistrate Judge James Cott issued a May 19, 2020, order denying Five Star permission to file a second amended complaint. Among other things, that order found that Five Star’s proposed claim for breach of the implied promise of good faith and fair dealing would be futile because it did not state a legally sufficient claim.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, Five Star had 14 days—until June 2, 2020—to object to that order. Five Star did not file objections by that date. During a June 25, 2020, case-management conference, Judge Cott indicated that objections at that point would appear untimely. Five Star later communicated that it intended to seek permission to file late objections and filed its motion on August 6, 2020.
Arguments and legal standard
Five Star relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b), which permits a court to extend a missed deadline when the failure resulted from “excusable neglect.” Five Star attributed the delay to miscommunication between its lawyer and the company, uncertainty about whether to pursue an appeal or settlement, and circumstances related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The court applied four factors: the possible prejudice to the opposing party, the length and effect of the delay, the reason for the delay and whether it was within Five Star’s control, and whether Five Star acted in good faith. The court emphasized that negligence ordinarily does not excuse failure to follow a clear deadline, particularly when the party was alerted to the deadline.
Ruling
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied Five Star’s motion in its entirety as untimely. She concluded that Five Star had not shown excusable neglect. The court found that counsel’s misunderstanding with the client was insufficient, that Five Star had not identified an extraordinary circumstance preventing a timely filing, and that the delay caused prejudice to Cauldwell-Wingate and its counsel. The court also pointed to Five Star’s failure to seek consent or court permission promptly, its failure to meet another discovery deadline, and inconsistent statements concerning its efforts to resolve the issue.
Because the motion was denied as untimely, the court did not address the merits of Five Star’s objections to Judge Cott’s May 19, 2020, order. The memorandum order resolved the motion identified as docket entry 123, and the case remained referred to Judge Cott for general pretrial management.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.