Marshall v. Marshall's TJX Companies, Inc.

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying Plaintiff's 20 Motion to Reopen Case and Vacate the Closing. Signed by Judge William M Nickerson on 4/6/2016. (dass, Deputy Clerk) (c/m 4/6/16-das)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
MICHAEL L. MARSHALL

*
*
v.
*
*
MARSHALL’S TJX COMPANIES, INC.*
* *
*
*
*
*
*
*

Civil Action No. WMN-15-555

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff filed this action on February 26, 2015, but
apparently did not attempt service for several months.

On June

15, 2015, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for insufficient
service of process which the Court treated as a motion to quash
service and granted it as such on August 11, 2015.

ECF No. 11.

In the Order quashing service, the Court gave Plaintiff 30 days
in which to effect proper service.

On October 1, 2015,

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
which the Court granted on December 2, 2015.

ECF No. 17.

In

the Memorandum and Order granting the motion to dismiss, the
Court also granted Plaintiff 20 days in which to file an amended
complaint.1

In that Order, the Court warned that, if Plaintiff

did not file an amended complaint within that time period, the
case would be closed.
The 20 days passed without Plaintiff having filed an
amended complaint.
1

On December 28, 2015, the Court received a

In granting Plaintiff leave to amend, the Court did note several
serious potential weaknesses in Plaintiff’s claims. ECF No. 17 at
8.

proposed amended complaint from Plaintiff, but without
explanation as to why it was untimely.

That proposed amended

complaint was also unsigned and, for that reason, was returned
to Plaintiff by the Clerk’s Office on December 30, 2015.

On

January 8, 2016, the Court issued an Order closing the case as
Plaintiff had yet to submit a signed copy of his proposed
amended complaint.

ECF No. 19.

On January 20, 2016, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Reopen
and Vacate the Closing,” ECF No. 20, in which he represents that
he had “no idea that [his] amended complaint for employment
discrimination had not been filed within the 20 days allowed.”
He then recounts that, on December 17, 2015, he hired a process
server to serve Defendant with “the papers” but, somehow, issues
within the process service agency prevented service from
happening until December 31, 2015.

Id.

Plaintiff, who is

proceeding pro se, does not identify the legal basis for his
motion but it is assumed that he is proceeding under Rule 60(b)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The only subsection of Rule 60(b) that could arguably apply
in this instance is 60(b)(1) which permits a court to “relieve a
party . . .

from a final judgment, order or proceeding for . .

. (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.”
“The remedy provided by the Rule, however, is extraordinary and
is only to be invoked upon a showing of exceptional
2

circumstances.”
(4th Cir. 1979).

Compton v. Alton S.S. Co., 608 F.2d 96, 102
“Excusable neglect is not easily demonstrated,

nor was it intended to be.”

Id.

The Supreme Court articulated

the standard for “excusable neglect” in Pioneer Inv. Serv. Co.
v. Brunswick Assoc. Ltd. P'ship, identifying four factors for
courts to consider, including “[1] the danger of prejudice to
the [non-movant], [2] the length of the delay and its potential
impact on judicial proceedings, [3] the reason for the delay,
including whether it was within the reasonable control of the
movant, and [4] whether the movant acted in good faith.”

507

U.S. 380, 395 (1993); see also Thompson v. E.I. DuPont de
Nemours & Co., Inc., 76 F.3d 530, 533 (4th Cir. 1996).
Moreover, “the most important factor considered by a court is
the reason for the delay.” Rothenberg v. Marriott Int'l, Inc.,
Civ. No. CCB-08-173, 2008 WL 687033, *1 (D. Md. Feb. 29, 2008)
(citing Thompson, 76 F.3d at 534); see also United States v.
Munoz, 605 F.3d 359, 372 (6th Cir. 2010) (noting that “the
Pioneer factors do not carry equal weight; the excuse given for
the late filing must have the greatest import”).
Here, Plaintiff provides no reason, whatsoever, as to why
he did not file his amended complaint in this Court within the
time allowed.

Instead, he recounts the failure of the process

service agency to serve papers on the Defendant within that time
period.

There is no indication, however, that this agency was
3

also charged with filing the amended complaint on Plaintiff’s
behalf and Plaintiff does not explain why he did not mail his
amended complaint to the Court as he has other pleadings.
Plaintiff has previously invoked his pro se status as an excuse
for his failure to properly effect service.

ECF No. 9.

Even

were he to again invoke it here to explain his failure to
achieve the relatively straightforward task of filing an amended
complaint, his pro se status alone would not be enough to excuse
that failure.

See Atakulu v. Maryland Dep't of Human Res., Civ.

No. GJH-14-0904, 2014 WL 2927772, at *4 (D. Md. June 26, 2014)
(finding that, “without more,” a pro se litigant’s “ignorance of
the law and relevant procedures is not sufficient to demonstrate
excusable neglect”).
Accordingly, IT IS this 6th day of April, 2016, by the
United States District Court for the District of Maryland,
ORDERED:
(1) That Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen and Vacate the
Closing, ECF No. 20, is DENIED; and
(2) That the Clerk of the Court shall transmit a copy of
this Memorandum and Order to Plaintiff and all counsel of
record.
_______________/s/________________
William M. Nickerson
Senior United States District Judge

4