Breadmore et al v. Jacobson

Filing 59

OPINION AND ORDER granting 21 Motion for Extension of Time.(Signed by Judge Melinda Harmon) Parties notified.(rhawkins)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
PATRICK SCOTT BREADMORE, et al,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
JAMES JACOBSON,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:13-CV-361

OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File First
Supplemental Complaint. Doc. 21. Having considered the motion, response, reply, the facts in
the record, and the applicable law, the Court concludes the motion should be granted.
I.

Background
On July 14, 2014, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend within

20 days upon registering for copyright pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 441. Doc. 18. The amended
complaint was due August 4, 2014. On August 18, 2014, Plaintiff filed the amended complaint,
along with the pending motion to extend and a declaration by a legal assistant stating the
complaint had been incorrectly electronically filed on August 14, 2014. Doc. 21.
II.

Legal Standard
“When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good

cause, extend the time . . . on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to act
because of excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. Excusable neglect is determined according to
four factors: “[1] the danger of prejudice to the debtor, [2] the length of the delay and its
potential impact on judicial proceedings, [3] the reason for the delay, including whether it was

1/3

within the reasonable control of the movant, and [4] whether the movant acted in good faith.”
Pioneer Inv. Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993).
III.

Discussion
Plaintiff states he was not able to finish the copyright application by the deadline for the

following reasons:
This [application] process required sorting thru hundreds of written materials,
drawings, diagrams, creating and arranging a display page, printing the display
page and assembling it among other display pages (as example, See Functionality
Diagram O/I) (See Dashboard Diagram 03A in the attached Z.E.A.L. Reward
Copyright Submission). Preparation of the ZEAL Rewards copyright documents
required hours and hours of contiguous work, much longer and more complicated
than I ever expected or anticipated. I am the only one who could prepare these
materials.
Doc. 20-1. Defendant has not provided any evidence that Plaintiff’s explanation was
unreasonable or in bad faith. Defendant makes a conclusory statement that the extension will
result in prejudice and states his counterclaim “sheds light” on the prejudice. The counterclaim,
however, does not discuss or shed light on prejudice but addresses only the merits of Plaintiff’s
claims. As for the length of delay, Defendant does not show that two weeks is excessive or that
the extension will adversely impact the proceedings, although it would have been more proper
for Plaintiff to request the extension prior to the deadline. It should be noted the Court has
granted extensions to Defendant on at least four occasions. Docs. 18, 28, 41, 51.
IV.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that time for filing of Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Complaint (Doc. 20) is

granted.

2/3

SIGNED at Houston, Texas, this 31st day of March, 2015.

___________________________________
MELINDA HARMON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3/3