Preserve Partners, Inc. v. Sawmill Park Properties, LLC
Filing
68
OPINION and ORDER signed by Judge Michael H. Watson on 2/7/2024. (jk)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
Preserve Partners, Inc.,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:22-cv-477
V.
Judge Michael H. Watson
Sawmill Park Properties, LLC,
Magistrate Judge Vascura
Defendant.
OPINIONAND ORDER
The Court previously ordered Sawmill Park Properties, LLC ("Defendant")
to show cause why its response to Preserve Partners, Inc. 's ("Plaintiff") motion
for summary judgment (the "Response") should not be stricken as untimely. ECF
No. 62. Defendant has done so, ECF No. 64, and the Court now considers
whether to strike the Response.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B) provides that when an act must
be done within a specified period of time, a court may, for good cause, extend
the time on motion made after time has expired if the moving party failed to act
because of excusable neglect. In determining "excusable neglect, " courts
balance the following factors:
(1) the danger of prejudice to the nonmoving party, (2) the length of
the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, (3) the
reason for the delay, (4) whether the delay was within the reasonable
control of the moving party, and (5) whether the late-filing party acted
in good faith.
Nafzigerv. McDermott Int'l, Inc., 467 F.3d 514. 522 (6th Cir. 2006) (citation
omitted). "Showing excusable neglect requires passing a high bar, which is
strict, and can be met only in extraordinary cases. " Adams v. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc., No. 1:19-CV-00551, 2021 WL 425632, at *2 (S. D. Ohio Feb. 8, 2021)
(quotation marks and citation omitted).
Two factors weigh heavily against Defendant: the reason for the delay and
whether the delay was in Defendant's control. Defendant represents that it
missed the response deadline because counsel mis-calendared the deadline.
Resp. 1, ECF No. 64 (representing that the untimely filing "was caused entirely
by the undersigned Counsel's mistaken calendaring of Defendant's Response
date[. ]"). Mere mis-calendaring does not favor a finding of excusable neglect.
See Blazer v. Chrisman Mill Farms, LLC, No. 5:17-CV-430-DCR-REW, 2018 WL
1089274, at *2 (E. D. Ky. Feb. 28, 2018) (citing cases) (explaining that attorney
mis-calendaring does not generally warrant a finding of excusable neglect). And
the delay was entirely within Defendant's control; because the briefing schedule
was the standard schedule contained in the local rules, Defendant had advanced
notice of the same. Id. at *3 (concluding the delay was in the moving party's
control when it had advanced notice of the deadline but missed the deadline
because of a mis-calendaring). Thus, these two factors weigh strongly against
Defendant.
Case No. 2:22-cv-477
Page 2 of 5
The remaining three factors slightly favor Defendant. The delay was very
short, only a few days. Because the delay was short, Plaintiff suffered minimal
prejudice from the delay. Still, in a case as heavily litigated as this one, even
small, unexpected delays disrupt the proceedings. And as the Sixth Circuit has
observed, overly discounting short delays "would deprive the term 'deadline' of
much of its meaning. " Nafziger, 467 F. 3d at 523. Finally, there is no evidence
that Defendant acted in bad faith. Accordingly, these factors weigh slightly in
Defendant's favor.
Although three factors slightly favor Defendant, the "reason for the delay"
factor is the most important factor. See, e. g., Adams, 2021 WL 425632, at *2
(observing that "reason forthe delay" is the "most important factor" (cleaned up)).
In addition, as discussed below, this is not the only example of Defendant
disregarding the Court's orders, which also weighs against Defendant. Nafziger,
467 F. 3d at 523 (explaining that, when considering a motion under Rule 6(b), a
court should take "account of all relevant circumstances, " including any other
instances of noncompliance with court orders (quotation marks and citation
omitted)).
At bottom, Defendant's late filing was the result of attorney error, and
"[c]ourts have routinely rejected untimely filings where the only triggering [ ] factor
was a mistake made by counsel. " Gohl v. Livonia Pub. Sch., No. 12-CV-15199,
2016 WL 2848421, at *2 (E. D. Mich. May 16, 2016) (cleaned up and citing
cases). Therefore, the Court STRIKES the Response.
Case No. 2:22-cv-477
Page 3 of 5
Turning to another matter, Defendant's motion for summary judgment,
ECF No. 55, and motion for sanctions, ECF No. 61 , do not comply with the
Court's standing orders, which provide:
All briefs and/or memoranda filed in any action before this Judge are
subject to a twenty-page limit. Counsel shall not exceed the twenty
page limitation without leave of Court.
* * *
Unless otherwise directed by the Court, no briefs or memoranda in
any action need contain a table of contents, table of authorities, or
summary of the argument.
Judge Watson's Civil Standing Orders at 2. Defendant's motion for summary
judgment is thirty-two pages long. ECF No. 55. The brief in support of the
motion for sanctions appears-at least at first-to be twenty pages long, but it
comes with a three page "motion" that is really the introductory section of the
brief, thus making the memorandum in rea//ty twenty-three pages long. ECF No.
61. In both instances, Defendant did not seek leave of Court to exceed the page
limit.
In addition, the motion for sanctions uses a font size smaller than Times
New Roman 12-point font, which also violates the Court's standing orders.
Judge Watson's Civil Standing Orders at 2. And, of course, if Defendant had
used a font size that complied with the Court's standing orders, its briefwould
have been even longer.
Accordingly, the Court STRIKES Defendant's motion for summary
judgment, motion for sanctions, and all associated briefing for failure to comply
Case No. 2:22-cv-477
Page 4 of 5
with the Court's standing orders. Defendant may re-move for summary judgment
WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS.
The Clerk shall designate the following ECF Numbers as "stricken": 55, 58,
60, 61, 63, 65, and 66, and shall terminate ECF Nos. 55 nd 61
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Ml
AELH. WA SON, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case No. 2:22-cv-477
Page 5 of 5
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?