Perez v. TEAM Environmental LLC

Filing 101

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 99 MOTION by TEAM Environmental LLC for Extension of Deadline to File an Answer to 78 Amended Complaint. Further, noting that TEAM attached to the motion its answer to the amended complaint, the court deems that answer filed. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 10/3/2017. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (lca)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT CHARLESTON
R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA,
SECRETARY OF LABOR,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-03491

TEAM ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending is TEAM Environmental, LLC’s (“TEAM”) motion
for an extension of its deadline to file an answer to R.
Alexander Acosta’s (“Acosta”) amended complaint.
Thomas Perez (“Perez”), then-Secretary of Labor,
initiated this action on April 8, 2016.

Fourteen months later,

and after lengthy discovery, on June 16, 2017, Perez filed an
unopposed motion for leave to file an amended complaint that
“add[ed] additional employees . . . seeking compensation . . .
in this case.”

Motion for Extension at 2.

The court entered an

order on June 22, 2017, approving that motion.
According to TEAM, its answer to the amended complaint
was due on July 6, 2017.

Id. at 2.

TEAM’s counsel states that

“[he] did not properly calendar that deadline due to other

pending matters that were being litigated in this case at that
time,” and that “[he] did not realize his inadvertence until
late on September 29, 2017.”

Id.

TEAM’s counsel advises that

he promptly notified opposing counsel, who informed him that she
did not have any objections to a late filing.

Id.

Attached to

TEAM’s motion is an answer to the amended complaint, which TEAM
asserts “is identical to the original Answer to the Complaint.”
Id.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B) states that
“[w]hen 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.”

The Supreme Court interprets this Rule as

permitting district courts, “where appropriate, to accept late
filings caused by inadvertence, mistake, or carelessness, as
well as by intervening circumstances beyond the party's
control.”

Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd.

P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 388 (1993).

Four factors are to be

considered in this analysis:
[1] [T]he danger of prejudice to the [non-moving
party;] [2] the length of the delay and its potential
impact on judicial proceedings[;] [3] the reason for
the delay, including whether it was within the
reasonable control of the movant[;] and [4] whether
the movant acted in good faith.
Id. at 395.
2

The court finds that, under the particularities of
this case, TEAM has shown the “excusable neglect” required by
Rule 6(b)(1)(B) and the Supreme Court.
danger of prejudice.

First, Acosta faces no

The nature of Acosta’s claims have not

changed, and Acosta does not object to the delayed filing of
TEAM’s answer to the amended complaint.

Second, there should be

no resulting delay, and the court notes that the litigation
appears to have proceeded as normal despite TEAM’s counsel’s
failure to file a timely answer.

Third, although TEAM’s

counsel’s reason for the delay – failing to “properly calendar
[the] deadline due to other pending matters . . . in this case”
– was easily avoidable, the countervailing considerations here
outweigh this factor.

And fourth, there is no evidence that

TEAM’s counsel acted in bad faith in filing the pending motion.
Accordingly, the court ORDERS that TEAM’s motion for
an extension of its deadline to file an answer to the amended
complaint be, and hereby is, granted.
Further, noting that TEAM attached to the motion its
answer to the amended complaint, the court deems that answer
filed.

3

The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this order
to all counsel of record and any unrepresented parties.
ENTER: October 3, 2017

John T. Copenhaver, Jr.
United States District Judge

4