Mason v. Montgomery County Police Dep't

Filing 20

MEMORANDUM ORDER granting 17 MOTION for Leave to File Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, Nunc Pro Tunc. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 9/15/2014. (aos, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Southern Division

*
RAFAEL MASON,

*
Plaintiff,

*

Case No.: PWG-13-1077

v.

*
MONTGOMERY

COUNTY,

*
Defendant.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM

*

*

*

*

*

ORDER

Following the December 13,2013 Order, ECF No. 14, in which Judge Williamsl granted
Defendant
Department's

Montgomery

County

and

former

Defendant

Montgomery

County

Police

Motion to Dismiss, but granted Plaintiff Rafael Mason until January 13, 2014 to

amend his complaint, Plaintiff filed a Motion fot Leave to File Amended Complaint Out of
Time, Nunc Pro Tunc, ECF No. 17, on January 14,2014, having missed the deadline by one day.
Plaintiff filed his proposed Amended Complaint with his motion. ECF No. 17-2. Plaintiff stated
that "counsel inadvertently missed the deadline" by "accidentally calendar[ing] [the deadline] for
January 14, 2014 instead of January 13,2014."

Pl.'s Mot. 1. For the reasons that follow, I will

grant Plaintiffs motion, which Defendant opposes, ECF No. 18.2

1

This case was reassigned to me on December 19,2013. Docket.

2 Plaintiff has not filed a reply, and the time for doing so has passed.
See Loc. R. 105.2(a). A
hearing is not necessary. See Loc. R. 105.6

Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B) provides that, "[w]hen an act mayor

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."
Whether neglect is "excusable" has been described by the Supreme Court as "at
bottom an equitable [inquiry], taking account of all relevant circumstances,"
including the following: (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 in the reasonable control of the movant;
and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith. Pioneer Inv.Servs.
Co. v.
Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993).
[T]he third Pioneer factor-the
important." Thompson, 76 F.3d at 534.

reason for the delay-is

the "most

Fernandes v. Craine, 538 F. App'x 274, 276 (4th Cir. 2013).
In Fernandes, the plaintiffs

attorney had until December 26, 2012 to file a motion for

attorney's fees following the entry of judgment in his party's favor. But, "Fernandes's
did not learn of the judgment until December 27, 2012--one

day too-late

lawyer

[sic] because the

Notice of Electronic Filing ("NEF") heralding the judgment had been diverted to his email
system's "junk mail" folder."

Id. at 275 (footnote omitted).

On December 27, 2012, Plaintiff

filed both his tardy motion for attorney's fees and a motion for a one-day extension.

Id. The

district court denied the motions, "explaining that the lawyer's failure to meet the filing deadline
amounted to nothing more than 'run of the mill inattentiveness.'"

Id. The Fourth Circuit vacated

the district court's decision, reasoning that "there [was] nothing in th[e] record suggesting that
Fernandes's

lawyer was aware of any computer problems, that he was willfully blind to the

status of the electronic docket, or that he made a strategic choice to remain ignorant of the
district court's judgment."

Id. at 276.

Here, as in Fernandes, Plaintiffs
blindness.

error was inadvertent and not an example of willful

See id. And, as in Fernandes, Plaintiff immediately filed his motion upon realizing

2

he missed the deadline, only one day later. See id. at 275. It is true that "court deadlines are not
mere suggestions or guideposts," Metts v. Airtran Airways, Inc., No. DKC-1O-466, 2010 WL
4183020, at *6 (D. Md. Oct. 22, 2010), and the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct require
that counsel "make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the
client," Md. R. Prof! Conduct R. 3.2; see Loc. R. 704 .. Yet, it also is true that the federal courts
"favor ... resolving cases on their merits instead of disposing of them on technicalities."

Laber

v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404,426 (4th Cir. 2006). Certainly, "[a] party may be excused from a single
or occasional failure to meet a scheduling deadline, and a court ought to be mindful that even the
most diligent lawyer or ardent party may need an extension of time to meet filing obligations."
Wonasue v. Univ. of Md. Alumni Assoc., No. PWG-11-3657, 2013. WL 5719004, at *3 (D. Md.
Oct. 17, 2013).

Thus, given that the delay was de minimus and occasioned by a small,

typographical error; there was no prejudice; and Plaintiff demonstrated that he acted in good
faith, I find th~t the neglect was excusable. See Fernandes, 538 F. App'x at 276.
As for good cause, the '''primary

consideration'"

in determining whether good cause

exists "is 'the movant's diligence.'" Johnson v. Bait. City Police Dep't, No. WDQ-12-646, 2013
WL 1833021, at *3 (D. Md. Apr. 30, 2013) (quoting Mesmer v. Rezza, No. DKC-10-1053, 2011
WL 5548990, at *5 (D. Md. Nov. 14,2011)).

Indeed, '''[l]ack of diligence and carelessness are

the hallmarks of failure to meet the good cause standard.'''

Id. (quoting Mesmer, 2011 WL

5548990, at *5) (internal quotation marks omitted)). Here, as noted, Plaintiff diligently filed his
motion for an extension and the untimely motion to amend within one day of his deadline.
Therefore, I find that the good cause standard has been met, albeit narrowly.
Accordingly, it is, this 15th day of September, 2014, hereby ORDERED that

3

1. Plaintiff s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint Out of Time, Nunc Pro
Tunc, ECF No. 17, IS GRANTED;
2. Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, ECF No. 17-2, is the operative complaint; and
3. Defendant IS DIRECTED to file a response by October 6,2014.
Plaintiff is cautioned that any further delays will not be tolerated.
lSI
Paul W. Grim
United States District Judge
lyb

4