United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky
IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT OF SMITHLAND TOWING & CONSTRUCTION, LLC, AS TITLE OWNER, AND WRBM, LLC D/B/A WESTERN RIVERS BOAT MANAGEMENT, INC. AS OPERATOR AND OWNER PRO HAC VICE OF THE WILLIAM E. STRAIT, OFFICIAL NO. 270550, FOR EXONERATION FROM OR LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
B. Russell, Senior Judge
matter is before the Court on Claimants Tranika Marie Smith
and Rakena Antoinette Smith's (“Claimants”)
Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Ferrellgas, LP and
Ferrellgas, Inc.'s (“Ferrellgas”) Motion to
Dismiss. [R. 106.] Ferrellgas responded. [R. 114.] This
matter is ripe for adjudication. For the reasons stated
herein, Claimants' Motion for Extension of Time to
Respond, [R. 106], is GRANTED.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B), “[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 has said
that ‘excusable neglect under Rule 6(b) is a somewhat
elastic concept.'” Delta Alcohol Distributors
v. Anheuser-Busch Int'l, Inc., 28 F.Supp.3d 682, 686
(E.D. Mich. 2014) (quoting Pioneer Inv. Serv. Co. v.
Brunswick Assocs. Ltd., 507 U.S. 380, 392 (1993)). And
“[a]lthough inadvertence, ignorance of the rules, or
mistakes construing the rules do not usually constitute
‘excusable' neglect, it is clear that
‘excusable neglect' under Rule 6(b) . . . is not
limited strictly to omissions caused by circumstances beyond
the control of the movant.” Pioneer Inv. Serv.
Co., 507 U.S. at 392.
their Motion for Extension of Time, the Claimants request an
extension of fourteen days to respond to Ferrellgas's
Motion to Dismiss, [R. 75], pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 6(b)(1)(B). [R. 106 at 1.] Ferrellgas opposes this
motion, arguing that the Claimants failed to comply with
Local Rule 7.1(b) and that Claimants' actions did not
amount to excusable neglect under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 6(b)(1)(B). [R. 114 at 1.]
A. Local Rule 7.1(b)
Local Rule 7.1(b) provides:
Motions for an Extension of Time.
Subject to any deadlines established by the Court, parties
may extend time limits by agreed order. Absent an agreed
order, the party seeking the extension must file a motion
setting forth the reasons for the extension and whether other
parties consent. A response opposing the motion must be filed
within 7 days of service of the motion.
LR 7.1(b). Here, Ferrellgas argues that the Claimants failed
to contact Ferrellgas in order to ascertain whether it would
consent, and, therefore, the Claimants' motion should be
denied due to failure to comply with Local Rule 7.1(b). [R.
114 at 2.]
Court takes note of Local Rule 7.1 but, consistent with this
Court's discretion, will not deny the Claimants the
opportunity to respond to Ferrellgas's Motion to Dismiss.
The Court believes that equity demands that Claimants be
given a fair opportunity to respond to Ferrellgas's
allegations. Furthermore, the period of delay here was quite
short. To be sure, a deadline is titled as such because a
filing is due on or before that date, and not a day or two or
fourteen afterwards. However, there is, in practice, a
substantial difference between fourteen days and thirty days
or forty days. Moreover, when the Claimants filed the instant
motion seeking a fourteen-day extension, they also filed,
contemporaneously, their proposed Response to
Ferrellgas's Motion for Summary Judgment. Thus, the Court
will not deny the Claimants the opportunity to respond due to
Ferrellgas's argument concerning Local Rule 7.1(b).
Federal Rule of Civil ...