Long et al v. M&M Transportation, LLC et al

Filing 41

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS denying 40 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Extend Deadline to Respond to Defendant's Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(C). Signed by District Judge Gina M. Groh on 12/27/2013. (cwm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
MARTINSBURG

CHRISTOPHER TYLER LONG,
CHRISTOPHER EMMETT LONG,
and EDY LONG,
Plaintiffs,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO: 3:13-CV-65
(JUDGE GROH)

M&M TRANSPORTATION, LLC;
MILLER & SONS AUTO AND TRUCK
REPAIR, INC.; KEVIN E. MILLER;
KENNETH ANDREW MILLER, JR.;
and PEGGY MILLER;
Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO RESPOND
TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
The above-styled matter came before the Court for consideration of the Plaintiffs’
Unopposed Motion to Extend Deadline to Respond to Defendant’s Motion for Partial
Judgment on the Pleadings Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) [Doc. 40].
The Plaintiffs ask that they have until January 7, 2013 to file their response to the
Defendants’ motion. They support this motion only by noting that it is the holiday season.
All Defendants except for Miller & Sons Auto and Truck Repair, Inc. filed a Motion
for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings on November 27, 2013 [Doc. 30]. Under Local Rule
of Civil Procedure 7.02(b)(1), responses to motions other than those seeking summary
judgment must be filed within fourteen days of the date that the motion was served.
Where, as here, service is made electronically, three days are added to this period. FED.
R. CIV. P. 6(d); FED. R. CIV. P. 5(b)(2)(E). When the due date falls on a Saturday, the

deadline is extended to the next day that is not a weekend day or legal holiday. FED. R.
CIV. P. 6(a)(1)(C). The Plaintiffs therefore had until December 16, 2013 to respond to the
Defendants’ motion.
Because the Plaintiffs moved for additional time to respond to the Defendants’
motion after the deadline to do so passed, the Court may grant the motion only if it finds
that the Plaintiffs “failed to act because of excusable neglect.” FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b)(1)(B).
Excusable neglect “is not easily demonstrated.” Thompson v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours
& Co., 76 F.3d 530, 534 (4th Cir. 1996). The Fourth Circuit has explained the analysis that
courts undertake to determine whether excusable neglect exists:
The determination of whether neglect is excusable “is at bottom an
equitable one, taking account of all relevant circumstances surrounding
the party's omission,” including “the danger of prejudice to the [nonmoving
party], the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial
proceedings, the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the
reasonable control of the movant, and whether the movant acted in good
faith.”
Bredell v. Kempthorne, 290 F. App’x 564, 565 (4th Cir. 2008) (quoting Pioneer Inv.
Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993)); see also
Gilyard v. Northlake Foods, Inc., 367 F. Supp. 2d 1008, 1010 (E.D. Va. 2005). The
reason for the movant’s failure to timely file is the most important factor in this analysis.
Bredell, 290 F. App’x at 565 (citing Thompson, 76 F.3d at 534). Courts in the Fourth
Circuit have found that a busy schedule does not justify finding excusable neglect. See,
e.g., Key v. Robertson, 626 F. Supp. 2d 566, 577 (E.D. Va. 2009); Eagle Fire, Inc. v.
Eagle Integrated Controls, Inc., No. CIVA 3:06CV264, 2006 WL 1720681, at *4-5
(E.D. Va. June 20, 2006).

2

Here, the weakness of the reason for the delay overrides any tendency that the
other factors may have toward showing excusable neglect. The Plaintiffs have only
asserted–without further elaboration– that it is the holiday season. It is unclear that the
holidays in any way caused the Plaintiffs to miss the response deadline; in fact, the
Plaintiffs do not even acknowledge that their response is untimely. Even so, though the
holidays may have made the Plaintiffs’ schedules busier, a busy schedule does not rise
to the level of excusable neglect. See, e.g., Key, 626 F. Supp. 2d at 577; Eagle Fire,
Inc., 2006 WL 1720681, at *4-5. That is particularly the case here because the holidays
are entirely within the Plaintiffs’ control to plan around as they occur at the same time
every year. Accordingly, the Court does not find excusable neglect and DENIES the
Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion to Extend Deadline to Respond to Defendant’s Motion for
Partial Judgment on the Pleadings Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c).
It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to all counsel of record
herein.
DATED: December 27, 2013.

3