Brock Industrial Services, LLC v. Laborers International Union of North America, Construction & General Laborers Local #100

Filing 46

ORDER GRANTING 39 Motion for Leave to File Answer and finding as MOOT 38 Motion for Entry of Default. Signed by Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 5/15/2017. (bak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
BROCK INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, LLC, )
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
vs.
)
)
LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION )
OF NORTH AMERICA,
)
)
CONSTRUCTION & GENERAL
LABORERS LOCAL #100,
)
)
Defendant.
)

Case No. 16-CV-780-NJR-DGW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge:
Pending before the Court is Defendant Laborers’ International Union of North
America, Construction & General Laborers Local #100 (“Laborers”) Motion for Leave to
File Answer (Doc. 39), asking for an extension of time to file its Answer to the Complaint.
Brock Industrial Services, LLC (“Brock”) originally filed its Complaint on July 12,
2016 (Doc. 1). On August 2, 2016, Laborers filed a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 15).
Subsequently, the parties filed various other motions: a Motion to Vacate filed by Brock
(Doc. 18), a Motion to Dismiss the Motion to Vacate (Doc. 26) filed by Laborers, and a
Motion to Enforce (Doc. 30) filed by Laborers. On March 27, 2017, the Court issued an
Order addressing all of these motions, which included a denial of the Motion to Dismiss
(Doc. 15). In that Order, the Court reminded Laborers of its obligation to answer the
Complaint within the time period set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(4)(A)
(Doc. 37, n. 5).
Page 1 of 3

Rule 12(a)(4)(A) provides that “if the court denies the motion . . . , the responsive
pleading must be served within 14 days after notice of the court’s action.” FED. R. CIV. P.
12(a)(4)(A). That deadline came and went on April 10, 2017, and Laborers did not file an
Answer. On April 20, 2017, Brock filed a Motion for Entry of Default (Doc. 38) on the
basis of Laborers’ failure to respond to the Complaint. The next day, on April 21, 2017,
Laborers filed a Motion for Leave to File Answer (Doc. 39).
The Court has discretion to permit a defendant to file an answer late “on motion
made after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect.”
FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b)(1)(B). A finding of excusable neglect “extends to some cases in which
the delay is ‘caused by inadvertence, mistake, or carelessness.’” Lewis v. School Dist. #70,
523 F.3d 730, 740 (7th Cir. 2008) (quoting Pioneer Inv. Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates
Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993)). The determination of “excusable neglect” is “’at
bottom an equitable one, taking account of all relevant circumstances surrounding the
party’s omission.’” Id. The factors a court should consider are “the danger of unfair
prejudice [to the nonmoving party], the length of the delay . . . the reason for the delay,
including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant, and whether the
movant acted in good faith.” Simstad v. Scheub, 816 F.3d 893, 899 (7th Cir. 2016) (quoting
Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 395).
Although the Court acknowledges that Laborers does not give much of an
explanation of how it meets the excusable neglect standard, the Court nonetheless finds
good cause to grant Laborers’ motion. Brock does not claim any prejudice by the delay,
stating that it “takes no position with respect to whether [Laborers] has demonstrated

Page 2 of 3

excusable neglect.” (Doc. 45, p. 2). The delay has not significantly impeded this case, and
there is no indication of bad faith in the delay. Laborers acted by filing a motion one day
after Brock sought a clerk’s entry of default in light of Laborers’ omission. Accordingly,
the Court grants Laborers’ Motion for Leave to File Answer (Doc. 39). See Washington v.
Duncan, No. 13-C-1080, 2015 WL 2165580, at *2 (E.D. Wisc. May 8, 2015) (the court
allowed an extension of time to file an answer when prejudice and impact on the case
was minimal); see also Wink v. Miller Compressing Company, Case No. 14-CV-367, 2014 WL
12656092, at *1 (E.D. Wisc. May 14, 2014) (the court allowed an extension of time to file
an answer noting that length of the delay and its potential impact on the proceedings
was minimal). The Answer has been filed on the docket at Doc. 40.
Given that the Court GRANTS Laborers’ Motion for Leave to File Answer
(Doc. 39), Brock’s Motion for Entry of Default (Doc. 38) is MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 15, 2017
s/ Nancy J. Rosenstengel__________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge

Page 3 of 3