Hagan v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co.

Filing 35

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by Senior Judge Charles R. Simpson, III on 6/9/2017. Plaintiff has twenty-one (21) days to supplement his 33 MOTION for Extension of Time. cc: Counsel (RLK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE
WILLIAM L. HAGAN, M.D.

PLAINTIFF

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15-CV-00298-CRS

NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY

DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff William L. Hagan, M.D.’s motion for an
extension of time to respond to Defendant Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company’s
(“Northwestern”) motion for judgment on the pleadings, ECF No. 33. Northwestern responded,
ECF No. 34. Hagan did not reply.
As background, on March 26, 2015, Hagan filed his complaint in Nelson County,
Kentucky Circuit Court. Compl. 1, ECF No. 1-2. Hagan alleged violations of the Kentucky
Consumer Protection Act and Kentucky Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act. Id. On April 20,
2015, Northwestern removed the case to this Court. Not. Removal, ECF No. 1. Northwestern
then filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 9. Within the
time allowed in which to file a response, Hagan moved for an extension of time to respond,
citing his counsel’s unusually busy trial and hearing schedule as grounds for the motion. May,
15, 2015 Mot. Extension Time, ECF No. 11. This Court granted Hagan’s motion for an extension
of time. May 28, 2015 Order, ECF No. 12.
Northwestern’s motion to dismiss was subsequently rendered moot on March 4, 2016 by
Hagan’s amended complaint, which added a claim under the Employment and Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). See Am. Compl. 1, ECF No. 19. See also February 3,
1

2016 Mem. Op. 7–8, ECF No. 17; February 3, 2016 Order, ECF No. 18. The parties agreed to
allow Northwestern an additional 14 days in which to answer the amended complaint. Agreed
Order, ECF No. 21. Northwestern answered. Answer, ECF No. 22.
On April 3, 2017 Northwestern moved for judgment on the pleadings, ECF No. 31.
Hagan was to respond by April 24, 2017. See LR 7.1(c). Hagan did not respond. On May 8,
2017, Northwestern filed a statement in lieu of a reply, ECF No. 32. On May 18, 2017, 24 days
after the response deadline, Hagan submitted the instant motion for an extension of time, ECF
No. 33.
Absent an agreed order, Local Rule 7.1(b) requires a party moving for an extension of
time to “file a motion setting forth the reasons for the extension and whether other parties
consent.” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1) provides that “[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.” Determinations
of whether a party failed to act due to excusable neglect are within the district court’s discretion.
See Nafziger v. McDermott Intern., Inc., 467 F.3d 514, 522 (6th Cir. 2006) (citing Turner v. City
of Taylor, 412 F.3d 629, 649 (6th Cir. 2005)). There are five factors to be balanced when making
an excusable neglect determination: “(1) the danger of prejudice to the nonmoving party, (2) the
length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, (3) the reason for the delay,
(4) whether the delay was within the reasonable control of the moving party, and (5) whether the
late-filing party acted in good faith.” Id. (citing Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd.
P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993)).
In this case, it is impossible for this Court to determine whether Hagan’s delay in
responding was due to excusable neglect because Hagan does not provide this Court with any

2

reasoning. Hagan’s motion merely states, “Comes the Plaintiff, William L. Hagan, M.D., by
counsel, and moves this Court to grant him twenty (20) days within which to respond to the
Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.” Mot. Extension Time, ECF No. 33. Hagan
provides this Court with nothing further. Hagan also failed to reply to Northwestern’s detailed
response opposing the motion for extension of time. Hagan’s failure to provide reasons why this
Court should grant his motion for an extension of time does not follow Local Rule 7.1(b) and
provides this Court with no good cause to grant his motion under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 6(b)(1).
But this Court prefers to adjudicate cases on the merits rather than procedural
technicalities. See Thacker v. City of Columbus, 328 F.3d 244, 252 (6th Cir. 2003). As such, the
Court will allow Hagan 21 days from entry of this order to supplement his motion for an
extension of time and bring it into compliance with Local Rule 7.1(b). In his supplemental brief,
Hagan may articulate the reasons behind his motion. If nothing is filed within 21 days, the Court
will deny Hagan’s motion for an extension of time.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

June 9, 2017

C al R Smpo I , ei J d e
h r s . i sn I Sno u g
e
I
r
U i dSae Ds i C ut
nt tt ir t o r
e
s tc

3