Hall v. Life Care Centers of America, Inc. et al

Filing 101

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 78 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kenneth G. Gale on 5/1/18. (df)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
PAMELA HALL,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
LIFE CARE CENTERS OF
)
AMERICA, INC., et al.,
)
)
Defendant. )
_______________________________)

Case No.: 16-2729-JTM-KGG

MEMORANDUM & ORDER ON
MOTION TO FILE ANSWER OUT OF TIME
In the present action, Plaintiff Pamela Hall alleges she was subject to
employment discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Family Medical and
Leave Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff contends she was forced to terminate her
employment, while Defendants Life Care Centers of America (“Defendant LCCA”
or “LCCA”) and Michelle Yosick (“Defendant Yosick” or “Yosick”) contend
Plaintiff did so voluntarily.
Now before the Court is Defendant Yosick’s Motion to File Answer Out of
Time. (Doc. 78.) Having reviewed the submissions of the parties, Defendant’s
motion is GRANTED.

1 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed her Complaint on October 25, 2016, alleging violations of the
Family Medical and Leave Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act by Defendant LCCA and Defendant Yosick.
(Doc. 1.) Defendant LCCA filed its Answer on December 30, 2016 (Doc. 9),
while Defendant Yosick filed a Motion to Dismiss the FLMA claim brought
against her (Docs. 11, 12). Yosick’s Motion to Dismiss was denied by the District
Court on February 10, 2017. (Doc. 15.)
Yosick concedes that upon the District Court’s denial of her Motion to
Dismiss, she failed to file an Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint. (Doc. 78, at 2.)
“Though the Court’s order [denying the Motion to Dismiss] did not direct Yosick
to file an Answer, she was obligated to do so within 14 days pursuant to Rule
12(a)(4)(A). Unfortunately, due to an administrative error, this deadline was not
calendared, and undersigned counsel mistakenly overlooked the deadline.” (Id.)
The case proceeded with a scheduling conference, the entry of the
Scheduling Order, and commencement of discovery. There was no mention of
Yosick having failed to file an Answer. During Yosick’s deposition on March 2,
2018, “Plaintiff’s counsel, for the first time, noted the missing Answer.” (Id., at 3.)
Defendant Yosick filed the present motion later that same day. (Id.)

2 

ANALYSIS
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B) states the standard for allowing a
party to file a pleading out of time. The rule provides in pertinent part, “[w]hen an
act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause,
extend the time . . . on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to
act because of excusable neglect.” “It is clear that ‘excusable neglect’ under Rule
6(b) is a somewhat ‘elastic concept’ and is not limited strictly to omissions caused
by circumstances beyond the control of the movant.” Alsbrooks v. Collecto, Inc.,
No. 10-2271-JTM, 2010 WL 4067145, at *2 (D. Kan. Oct. 15, 2010).
When determining whether a party’s actions constitute excusable neglect, a
court typically considers the following four factors: “(1) the danger of prejudice to
the opposing party, (2) the length of delay caused by the neglect and its impact on
judicial proceedings, (3) the reason for delay and whether it was in the reasonable
control of the moving party and (4) the existence of good faith on the part of the
moving party.” Scott v. Power Plant Maint. Specialists, Inc., No. 09-2591, 2010
WL 1881058, at *4 (D.Kan. May 10, 2010). “The reason for the delay in filing the
answer is an important, if not the most important, factor in this analysis.” Id.
(citation omitted). “The decision to permit the late filing of a pleading lies within
the court's discretion, and ‘the preferred disposition of any case is upon its merits
and not by default judgment.’” Claimsolution, Inc. v. Claim Solutions, LLC, No.
3 

17-2005-JWL-GEB, 2017 WL 2225225, at *2 (D. Kan. May 22, 2017) (internal
citation omitted).
Plaintiff argues that Defendant Yosick’s reliance on an “administrative
error” and that “counsel mistakenly overlooked the deadline” fails to establish
excusable neglect. (Doc. 82, at 4; Doc. 78, at 2.) Plaintiff reminds the Court that
Defendant previously opined that “inadvertently” failing to include a deadline in
Plaintiff’s counsel’s computerized notification system did not establish excusable
neglect when Plaintiff asked to file a motion to compel out of time. (Doc. 82, at 34; Doc. 54, at 7.) The Court recognizes the contradiction in Defendant’s positions
in the two motions. That stated, the Court disagreed with Defendant in the context
of Plaintiff’s prior motion and found that the inadvertence caused by an
administrative error did establish excusable neglect on behalf of Plaintiff. (Doc.
55, text entry.) The Court reaches the same conclusion herein and finds that
Defendant has established excusable neglect for failing to file an Answer to
Plaintiff’s Complaint.
Plaintiff has not been prejudiced by Yosick’s failure to Answer. Plaintiff
argues that while Yosick’s deposition has been taken, “although Plaintiff’s counsel
did take Yosick’s deposition, the questioning of her focused on subjects separate
and apart from what she had already admitted to by not responding to Plaintiff’s
Complaint.” (Doc. 82, at 2.) Plaintiff contends that allowing Defendant to Answer
4 

now “would necessitate reopening her deposition for questioning as to all things
she’s already admitted.” (Id., at 3.) The Court is not persuaded by this
predicament as it is self-inflicted. Plaintiff’s counsel was aware at the time of
Yosick’s deposition that she had not filed an Answer and was free to ask whatever
questions it saw fit within the bounds of discovery.1
While the Court acknowledges Plaintiff’s concern at the length of the delay
in filing the Answer is alarming (Doc. 82, at 9), the Court finds that there is no
evidence of bad faith on the part of Defendant. Given that “‘the preferred
disposition of any case is upon its merits and not by default judgment,’”
Claimsolution, 2017 WL 2225225, at *2, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s
motion.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Yosick’s Motion to File
Answer Out of Time (Doc. 78) is GRANTED. Defendant’s Answer shall be filed,
in the form attached to her motion, within fourteen (14) days of the date of this
Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 1st day of May, 2018, at Wichita, Kansas.

1

Even if Plaintiff determines that re-opening the deposition is necessary, this is
preferable to disallowing the Answer. Should Plaintiff determine that she needs to reopen the deposition, the parties are instructed to confer regarding this issue.
5 

S/ KENNETH G. GALE

HON. KENNETH G. GALE
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6