Robin v. City of Frisco, Texas et al
Filing
33
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re 26 MOTION for Leave to File Defendants' Final Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Jury Demand filed by Lauren Safranek, Greg Ward, George Purefoy, City of Frisco, Texas, Amy Smith, John Br uce, 25 MOTION for Extension of Time to Amend 3 Answer to Complaint filed by Lauren Safranek, Greg Ward, George Purefoy, City of Frisco, Texas, Amy Smith, John Bruce. Defendants Motion for Leave to File their Final Amended A nswer, Affirmative Defenses, and Jury Demand in Response to Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint (Dkt. #26) is hereby GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that Defendants Motion for Leave for Extension of Time to File Defendants Final Amended Pleadings (Dkt. #25) is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 7/13/17. (cm, )
United States District Court
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
JANNA ROBIN
v.
CITY OF FRISCO, TEXAS, GREG WARD,
JOHN BRUCE, LAUREN SAFRANEK,
GEORGE PUREFOY, AMY SMITH
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 4:16-CV-00576
Judge Mazzant
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court are Defendants’ Motion for Leave for Extension of Time to File
Defendant’s Final Amended Pleadings (Dkt. #25) and Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File their
Final Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Jury Demand in Response to Plaintiff’s First
Amended Complaint (Dkt. #26). Having considered the pleadings, the Court finds Defendants’
Motion for Leave to File their Final Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Jury Demand
in Response to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Dkt. #26) should be granted. Defendants’
Motion for Leave for Extension of Time to File Defendant’s Final Amended Pleadings (Dkt. #25)
is denied as moot.
BACKGROUND
On June 22, 2016, Plaintiff Janna Robin filed suit in the 401st Judicial District Court of
Collin County, Texas against the City of Frisco, Texas, Amy Smith, Greg Ward, John Bruce,
Lauren Safranek, and George Purefoy (Dkt. #1, Plaintiff’s Original Petition). On August 1, 2016,
the City of Frisco filed an original answer and affirmative defenses in state court (Dkt. #3). On
August 3, 2016, the City of Frisco removed the case to the Court (Dkt. #1).
On September 9, 2016, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (Dkt. #11).
On
October 21, 2016, Defendants filed a Rule 12(e) Motion for More Definite Statement and Rule
12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #18). On April 5, 2017, the Court denied Defendants’ motion
(Dkt. #23). Defendants’ deadline to answer Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint was April
19, 2017—fourteen days after the Court denied Defendants’ motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4)
(“if the court denies [a Rule 12] motion or postpones its disposition until trial, the responsive
pleading must be served within 14 days after notice of the court’s action”).
On May 24, 2017, Defendants filed a motion for leave for extension of time to file their
final amended pleadings (Dkt. #25). On June 8, 2017, Plaintiff filed a response (Dkt. #28).
On May 25, 2017, Defendants filed a motion for leave to file their final amended answer,
affirmative defenses, and jury demand in response to Plaintiff’s first amended complaint
(Dkt. #26). On June 8, 2017, Plaintiff filed a response (Dkt. #29). On June 12, 2017, Defendants
filed a reply (Dkt. #30).
LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B) (“Rule 6(b)(1)(B)”) provides the standard that
controls the granting of an extension to file a responsive pleading after the deadline to answer has
already expired. Rule 6(b)(1)(B) states “the court may, for good cause, extend the time [to answer]
on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect.”
F. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B).
“Rule 6(b)(1)(B)’s requirements are quite flexible, and [a] district judge enjoys broad
discretion to grant or deny an extension.” Mattress Giant Corp. v. Motor Advert. & Design Inc.,
No. CIV.A.3:07CV1728-D, 2008 WL 898772, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2008) (citing 4B Charles
Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1165, at 532–29 (3d ed.
2002)). “Excusable neglect is intended and has proven to be quite elastic in its application. In
essence it is an equitable concept that must take account of all relevant circumstances of the party’s
2
failure to act within the required time.” Id. (citations omitted). Excusable neglect “encompasses
late filings . . . due to mistake, inadvertence or carelessness and not to bad faith” Id. (citations and
quotations omitted). In deciding whether to grant relief under Rule 6(b)(1)(B), courts also consider
the length of delay and prejudice to other parties. Id.
ANALYSIS
Defendants’ deadline to answer the First Amended Complaint was April 19, 2017.
Defendants did not seek leave to file their amended answer, affirmative defenses and jury demand
until May 25, 2017, or thirty-six days after the deadline to answer. Defendants argue they were
unable to answer the First Amended Complaint because the Court’s scheduling order set the
amended pleadings deadline for February 20, 2017, and the Court did not rule on Defendants’
motion to dismiss until April 5, 2017 (Dkt. #17). This argument is without merit.
The Court’s scheduling order addresses amended pleadings. Here, Defendants’ filed a
Rule 12 motion and were not required to file an answer to the First Amended Complaint until
fourteen days after the Court’s ruling on their Rule 12 motion. The scheduling order’s deadline
for amended pleadings has no bearing on Defendants’ deadline to file their responsive pleadings
to the First Amended Complaint. Defendants did not file their answer and affirmative defenses to
the First Amended Complaint within fourteen days of the Court’s order denying their Rule 12
motion, and therefore did not timely respond.
However, Defendants request that the Court extend the deadline to file their answer and
affirmative defenses pursuant to Rule 6(b)(1)(B) (Dkt. #26 at p. 3).
Plaintiff argues that
Defendants have not met their burden of proof to show they did not respond due to excusable
neglect. Plaintiff also argues she will be prejudiced if Defendants are permitted to respond because
3
she did not serve discovery requests inquiring about the denials or defenses Defendants now seek
to raise (Dkt. #29 at p. 7).
The Court has broad discretion to grant or deny an extension under Rule 6(b)(1)(B). The
Court finds that Defendants misunderstood the scheduling order and their requirements under the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and did not answer due to inadvertence or carelessness. The
Court therefore grants Defendants’ motion for an extension of time to file responsive pleadings.
Plaintiff may serve amended discovery requests following Defendants filing of their responsive
pleading.
CONCLUSION
It is therefore ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File their Final Amended
.
Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Jury Demand in Response to Plaintiff’s First Amended
Complaint (Dkt. #26) is hereby GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion
for Leave for Extension of Time to File Defendant’s Final Amended Pleadings (Dkt. #25) is
DENIED AS MOOT.
SIGNED this 13th day of July, 2017.
___________________________________
AMOS L. MAZZANT
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?