Roeslein & Associates, Inc. et al v. Elgin et al

Filing 24

ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Thomas Elgin's Second Motion forExtension of Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond to Plaintiff's Complaint 21 is GRANTED. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Bodenhausen on 5/19/17. (CAR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

ROESLEIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. and
ROESLEIN ALTERNATIVE ENERGY, LLL,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiffs,
v.
THOMAS ELGIN, ELGIN MEYER
BIOENERGY CO. and J.S. MEYER
ENGINEERING, P.C.,
Defendants.

No. 4:17 CV 1351 JMB

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Thomas Elgin’s (“Elgin”) Second Motion
for Extension of Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 21).
Plaintiffs Roeslein & Associates, Inc. and Roeslein Alternative Energy, LLC
(“Plaintiffs”) filed this case on April 18, 2017. Summons issued, and Plaintiffs served Elgin on
April 19, 2017. Elgin’s responsive pleading was originally due May 9, 2017, but on April 26,
2017, Elgin filed his first request for additional time, seeking up to and including May 23, 2017,
within which to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint. Elgin represented in the
motion that he had Plaintiffs’ consent. On April 27, 2017, the Court granted Elgin’s motion for
extension of time.
On May 4, 2017, Defendants Elgin Meyer Bioenergy Co. and J.S. Meyer Engineering,
P.C. (collectively, “Meyer Defendants”) filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Answer or
Otherwise Respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 19), requesting an additional thirty days to
answer or otherwise respond due to the complex nature of Plaintiffs’ claims. In that motion,
Meyer Defendants noted that Plaintiffs’ counsel of record had agreed to the requested thirty day
1

extension. On May 5, 2017, the Court granted the motion and extended the time up to and
including June 15, 2017.
On May 18, 2017, Elgin filed a Second Motion for Extension of Time to Answer or
Otherwise Respond to Plaintiffs’ Complaint (ECF No. 21), requesting up to and including June
15, 2017. Elgin represented in the motion that he had the consent of Plaintiffs’ counsel. On May
19, 2017, Plaintiffs filed an opposition to Elgin’s Second Motion for Extension of Time, noting
that Plaintiffs neither consented to the first motion for extension of time nor had counsel been
contacted seeking his consent to the second extension. Plaintiffs contend that inasmuch as the
claims in this case concern Elgin’s actions, he is familiar with the factual allegations and is in
possession of facts that would allow him to file a responsive pleading without another extension
of time being granted. Plaintiffs argue granting Elgin’s extension of time would reward a party
who misrepresented facts to the Court and would also unnecessarily delay the instant matter.
Within hours, Elgin filed a Reply to Plaintiff’s opposition wherein Elgin’s counsel noted that she
inadvertently incorporated consent language in the preamble of the two motions for extension of
time, acknowledged that Plaintiffs did not consent to either motion, and apologized to the Court
and Plaintiffs’ counsel for “this gross oversight.” (ECF No. 23) Citing the complex nature of
the issues each of Plaintiffs’ claims present, Elgin reiterated his request for an extension of time
up to and including June 15, 2017, within which to file his answer or otherwise respond to
Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
Rule 6(b)(1)(A) gives this Court wide discretion to grant a request for additional time that
is made prior to the expiration of the period originally prescribed or prior to the expiration of the
period as extended by a previous order. Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(1)(A). Here, Elgin sought the second
extension of time before the May 23, 2017, deadline had expired, thus giving him the benefit of

2

the more lenient standard for extensions and relieving him of the obligation to show excusable
neglect. Id. “[A]n application for extension of time under Rule (b)(1)(A) normally will be
granted in the absence of bad faith on the part of the party seeking relief or prejudice to the
adverse party.” 4 B Wright, Miller & Steinman, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1165 (3d ed.).
Plaintiffs have not demonstrated how they would be prejudiced by the granting of the
second extension of time especially in light of the responsive pleading deadline of June 15, 2017,
for Meyer Defendants.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Thomas Elgin’s Second Motion for
Extension of Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 21)
is GRANTED.

/s/ John M. Bodenhausen
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated this 19th day of May, 2017.

3