Michael v. Bloomberg, L.P.
Filing
245
OPINION & ORDER: On October 28, 2016, plaintiffs filed a letter-motion ("Motion for Leave") asking for leave to file a Supplemental Statement of Undisputed Facts and a Supplemental Declaration of Michael Russo in connection with their pending Motion for SJ. Defendant filed its opposition to plaintiffs' Motion for Leave on November 4, 2016. For the reasons discussed below, plaintiffs' Motion for Leave is denied. The Court therefore denies plaintiffs' request for leave to file a Supplemental Statement of Material Facts and a Supplemental Declaration of Michael Russo. To the extent that plaintiffs feel it necessary to rebut defendant's argument, which was raised in defendant's opposition to plaintif fs' motion for class certification, plaintiffs should do so in their reply papers in connection with that pending motion. The Court expresses no opinion as to what plaintiffs may or may not include in their reply papers in connection with their motion for partial summary judgment. (As further set forth in this Opinion) (Signed by Judge Thomas P. Griesa on 11/14/2016) (kl)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ERIC MICHAEL ROSEMAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
No. 14-cv-2657
v.
OPINION & ORDER
BLOOMBERG, L.P.,
Defendant.
On September 13, 2016, the Court issued an order requiring plaintiffs to
file motions for summary judgment, if any, by September 22, 2016. Plaintiffs
timely filed a motion for partial summary judgment ("Motion for SJ") on
September 22, 2016. On October 28, 2016, plaintiffs filed a letter-motion
("Motion for Leave") asking for leave to file a Supplemental Statement of
Undisputed Facts and a Supplemental Declaration of Michael Russo in
connection with their pending Motion for SJ. Defendant filed its opposition to
plaintiffs' Motion for Leave on November 4, 2016. For the reasons discussed
below, plaintiffs' Motion for Leave is denied.
The deadline for plaintiffs to file documents in connection with their
Motion for SJ expired on September 22, 2016. Plaintiffs' request to file
supplemental documents on October 28, 2016 is therefore untimely. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 6. The Court may, however, excuse plaintiffs' untimely request if it
finds that "good cause" and "excusable neglect" exist under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B). Courts consider four factors in determining whether
excusable neglect exists: (1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing party, (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. See Pioneer Inv. Servs.
1
Co. v. BrunswickAssocs. Ltd. P ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993).
Although the Supreme Court explained in Pioneer that excusable neglect
is an "elastic concept," 507 U.S. at 392, the Second Circuit has taken a "hard
line" approach in applying this standard. The Second Circuit has repeatedly
held that delays "attributable solely to a [party's] failure to act with diligence
cannot be 'characterized as excusable neglect."' Padilla v. Maersk Line} Ltd.,
721 F.3d 77, 83-84 (2d Cir. 20 13) (citing Dominguez v. United States, 583 F.2d
615, 617 (2d Cir. 1978)). Where the Court has set a clear and unambiguous
deadline, a party "claiming excusable neglect will, in the ordinary course, lose
under the Pioneer test." Canfield v. VanAtta Buick/GMC Truck} Inc., 127 F.3d
248, 251 (2d Cir. 1997).
Here, plaintiffs argue that their neglect was caused, at least in part, by
their failure to anticipate an argument raised by defendant in an opposition,
not to plaintiffs' Motion for SJ, but to plaintiffs' separate motion for class
certification under Rule 23. Specifically, defendant argued that plaintiffs were
2
exempt from the relevant Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") requirements
because they were "financial consultants," as defined under the FLSA.
Plaintiffs argue that their failure to anticipate defendant's argument
establishes "good cause" and "excusable neglect" under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 6(b)(l)(B). Regardless of whether defendant's argument is frivolous
(as plaintiffs claim), it is unclear how a failure to anticipate an argument,
raised in a separate and unrelated memorandum, excuses a late supplemental
filing in this instance. Furthermore, without expressing any judgment on the
merits of plaintiffs' underlying Motion for SJ and after reviewing plaintiffs'
proposed supplemental materials, the Court does not believe t;lw proposed
supplemental materials would be probative as to whether plaintiffs are in fact
exempt under the FLSA.
'
The Court therefore denies plaintiffs' request for leave to file a
Supplemental Statement of Material Facts and a Supplemental Declaration of
Michael Russo. To the extent that plaintiffs feel it necessary to rebut
defendant's argument, which was raised in defendant's opposition to plaintiffs'
motion for class certification, plaintiffs should do so in their reply papers in
connection with that pending motion. The Court expresses no opinion as to
what plaintiffs may or may not include in their reply papers in connection with
their motion for partial summary judgment.
3
SO ORDERED.
Dated: New York, New York
November 14, 2016
Thomas P. Griesa
United States District Judge
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?