Savor Health, LLC v. Day
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:19-cv-09798
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
Savor Health v. Day: Judge Abrams denied Day’s motion to strike Savor’s late Answer, finding excusable neglect.
Savor Health, LLC and Susan Bratton were allowed to keep their late Answer; Andrea Day’s motion to strike was denied. The underlying claims were not decided in this order.
What happened
In Savor Health, LLC v. Day, Andrea Day asked the court to strike Savor Health, LLC and Susan Bratton’s Answer to her counterclaims and third-party complaint. The Answer was filed more than three months after the deadline.
The court found that Savor’s delay was excusable. It reasoned that Day faced little prejudice, the delay did not disrupt the case, and there was no evidence that Savor acted in bad faith. Striking the Answer would have forced Savor into default, which the court described as an extreme sanction.
Judge Ronnie Abrams denied Day’s motion to strike the Answer. The court also treated Savor’s letter as a request for permission to file the late Answer and allowed the case’s summary-judgment briefing to continue on the schedule stated in the order.
The detailed version
- Savor Health, LLC v. Day · No. 1:19-cv-09798
- Ronnie Abrams
- Nov. 15, 2022
Background
Andrea Day filed a motion asking the Court to strike the Answer filed by Savor Health, LLC and Susan Bratton, which the opinion refers to together as “Savor.” The Answer responded to Day’s Second Amended Counterclaims and Third-Party Complaint.
Day filed those pleadings on April 19,
- Savor moved to strike them, but the Court denied that motion on May 12,
- Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Savor was required to file its Answer by May 26,
- Savor filed the Answer on September 12, 2022, more than three and a half months late. Day moved to strike it on September 15, 2022.
Day also asked the Court to direct Savor to file a statement required in connection with summary judgment. The Court did not address that request because Savor filed the statement on September 27, 2022.
Legal standard and analysis
The Court applied the rule allowing a late filing when the party’s failure to meet the deadline resulted from “excusable neglect.” The Court considered the factors identified by the Supreme Court: prejudice to the opposing party, the length and effect of the delay, the reason for the delay and whether it was within the filing party’s control, and whether the party acted in good faith.
The Court concluded that these factors favored finding excusable neglect. First, the late Answer posed little danger of prejudice to Day. Savor had notified the Court that it planned to seek summary judgment on Day’s claims, which showed that Savor intended to contest them. Day also stated that the Answer did not substantively change Savor’s earlier admissions, denials, or defenses.
Second, although the delay was substantial, the Court found no discernible effect on the proceedings. The Court and the parties knew that Savor intended to move for summary judgment, and the Court had planned to set a briefing schedule. The Court also emphasized the policy favoring resolution of cases on their merits.
Third, the Court found no evidence of bad faith. Savor said it had been uncertain whether an Answer was required because of the procedural posture and its pending summary-judgment filing. The Court found that Savor was wrong about the requirement to answer, but viewed the mistake as carelessness rather than an effort to gain an unfair advantage.
The Court also rejected Day’s argument that the Answer should be stricken because it improperly included affirmative assertions and admissions instead of only short and plain admissions or denials. Even accepting Day’s characterization, the Court found no reason to strike the entire Answer. It stated that any immaterial or redundant material could be disregarded rather than requiring the whole pleading to be stricken.
Ruling
The Court treated Savor’s September 26, 2022 letter as a motion for permission to file a late Answer. It denied Day’s motion to strike the Answer. The Court directed Day to file her cross-motion and opposition to Savor’s summary-judgment motion by November 29, 2022; Savor to file its opposition and reply by December 8, 2022; and Day to file her reply by December 22, 2022. The opinion did not decide the underlying counterclaims or third-party claims.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.