CASTELLANI v. CITY OF ATLANTIC CITY et al

Filing 317

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: Plaintiff's request for an additional 2 week extension to file his opposition to Defendants' motions for summary judgment; ORDERED that Plaintiff's opposition paper are due 3/8/2017 and Defendants' reply papers are due 3/17/2017. Signed by Chief Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 3/1/2017. (dmr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

DAVID CONNOR CASTELLANI,
HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE
Plaintiff,
Civil No. 13-5848 (JBS-AMD)
v.
CITY OF ATLANTIC CITY, et al.,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Defendants

SIMANDLE, Chief Judge:
This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiff’s request
for an additional two-week extension to file his opposition to
Defendants’ motions for summary judgment [Docket Item 314].
Plaintiff’s opposition to three of Defendants’ motions was
initially due on December 20, 2016 [see Docket Items 281, 283,
and 288], and opposition to the City of Atlantic City’s motion
was initially due on January 3, 2017 [see Docket Item 293].

On

December 20, 2016, Plaintiff requested a three-week extension to
file opposition papers, and the Court granted that request,
making all opposition due on January 10, 2017. [Docket Item
296.] Plaintiff did not file any opposition by January 10th;
instead, Plaintiff’s counsel waited over six weeks to even
request another extension, and only corresponded with this Court
after counsel for the City informed the Court that “at no time
did [she] consent to another extension of time for Plaintiff to

respond to Defendant’s pending Motion for Summary Judgment, nor
was consent requested.” [Docket Item 312].
In the belated attempt to justify another extension request
and her six week silence, Plaintiff’s counsel not only fails to
explain why she did not file her opposition papers or request
another extension before the court-ordered extended deadline of
January 10, 2017, but she also offers a litany of excuses to the
Court as she has yet to file Plaintiff’s opposition, due to (1)
a trial beginning on January 31, 2017, (2) counsel’s inability
to delegate work on the opposition motion to “the only other
attorney in her office, a first-year associate,” (3) the fact
that counsel “is currently representing six separate Plaintiffs
in civil rights actions against the City of Atlantic City in
this Court,” and (4) counsel’s “significant responsibilities in
her cases pending in the state and federal courts of New York
and Illinois where she regularly practices.” [Docket Item 314 at
p. 2-3.] Counsel for Plaintiff maintains that she “has worked
diligently to meet the deadlines of this Court but there is
simply no scenario under which she could have met the deadline
for filing her response to the defendants’ motions given the
foregoing.” [Id. at 3.] The Court acknowledges at the outset
that counsel is involved in other significant, time-consuming
cases without the benefit of a large staff.

2

Plaintiff’s six-week silence and failure to comply with the
Court’s extended time deadline of January 10th is not excused
and is a violation of L. Civ. R. 7.1(d), governing extensions of
time, and it implicates L. Civ. R. 101.1(d), which states that
“[a]ll members of the bar of this Court and those specially
permitted to participate in a particular action shall strictly
observe the dates fixed for scheduling conferences, motions,
pretrial conferences, trials or any other proceedings.

Failure

of counsel for any party . . . to comply with this Rule may
result in the imposition of sanctions.” (emphasis added).
Possible sanctions can include treating all of Defendants’
summary judgment motions as unopposed. See L. Civ. R.
7.1(d)(7)(“The Court may reject any brief or other paper not
filed within the time specified.”). Disregarding dispositive
motion deadlines inevitably “delay[s] impending trials,”
“unnecessarily burden[s] this Court” and “such conduct is
insulting to the Magistrate [and District] Judges who work
diligently, often with the input of counsel, to establish these
deadlines.” Chiropractic Alliance of New Jersey v. Parisi, 164
F.R.D. 618, 621 (D.N.J. 1996).
It must be noted that two aspects of professionalism are
also implicated. First, when approaching the Court to seek an
extension, the requester should always first confer with adverse
counsel to determine whether there is an objection; Plaintiff’s
3

counsel failed to do so. Second, when counsel misses a deadline,
it serves professionalism to admit the mistake, explain how it
happened, and seek to make amends; Plaintiff’s counsel again
failed to do so and instead points fingers at adverse counsel’s
other delays that seem unrelated to Plaintiff’s ability to file
timely opposition to the pending motions. The best defense is
not necessarily a good offense; sometimes a dose of humility
will go much further in explaining neglect that is excusable.
See Local Civil Rules of the District of New Jersey, App. R,
“Guidelines for Litigation Conduct” (especially “Lawyers’ Duties
to Other Counsel,” ¶¶ 11, 14, 15, 17, & 29; and “Lawyer’s Duties
to the Court,” ¶¶ 1 & 2).
The Court does not find good cause for Plaintiff’s gross
untimeliness in filing his opposition papers; despite counsel’s
various other commitments, nothing has prevented counsel from
timely requesting further extensions as opposed to remaining
silent for over six weeks and expecting the Court or opposing
counsel not to notice. Moreover, nothing in the present motion
addresses Plaintiff’s inattentiveness to the four summary
judgment motions in this case through the extended opposition
deadline six weeks ago on January 10th.

The Court will not

hesitate to impose sanctions if this disregard of the Local
Rules and the New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct
continues. See, e.g., R.P.C. 1.3 (“A lawyer shall act with
4

reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client”).
Nevertheless, in this instance, in the interests of justice and
moving this case forward, the Court grants Plaintiff’s extension
request, nunc pro tunc.

The Court does not wish to prejudice

the case of a Plaintiff who raises substantial civil rights
issues and awaits a day in court, where granting this relief
does not cause prejudice to the Defendants beyond delay in
addressing their motions.
IT IS this

1st

day of

March

, 2017 hereby

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s opposition papers are now due on
March 8, 20171 and Defendants’ reply briefs are due on March 17,
2017; and it is further
ORDERED that no further extensions involving Plaintiff’s
opposition papers shall be granted, and that sanctions may be
imposed for any continuing failure to comply with the Court’s
order.

s/ Jerome B. Simandle
JEROME B. SIMANDLE
Chief U.S. District Judge

1

In further granting Plaintiff’s counsel’s request to extend the opposition
date, the Court notes that Plaintiff will have had approximately three
months’ time to address Defendants’ motions. This constitutes more than
reasonable accommodation to counsel’s busy schedule.

5