Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00098/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00098-56/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD ALVARADO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

 FEDEX CORPORATION,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 04-0098 SI

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS’

UNTIMELY ANSWER; DENYING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE AN

ANSWER; AND STRIKING DOCKET

NO. 653

On January 12, 2007, the Court heard argument on plaintiffs’ motion to strike defendant’s

answer, and on defendant’s motion for an enlargement of time to file an answer. For the reasons set

forth below, the Court GRANTS plaintiffs’ motion and DENIES defendant’s motion, and STRIKES the

answer filed on November 22, 2006.

DISCUSSION

Although plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on January 9, 2004, defendant never filed an

answer to it. Nearly three years later, after extensive motion practice and two jury trials in this action,

defendant filed a 40 page answer asserting 34 affirmative defenses. Plaintiffs have moved to strike the

untimely answer. Defendant, after having already filed the answer and after receiving plaintiffs’ motion

to strike it, filed a motion for an “enlargement of time” to file an answer.

The Court has discretion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) to allow the filing of an

untimely answer “where the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). The

Court finds that defendant has not established excusable neglect. Defendant is well-resourced, has

litigated this case vigorously, and has filed numerous pretrial motions, including over a dozen motions

Case 3:04-cv-00098-SI Document 674 Filed 01/12/07 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 The Court notes that a week before the then-scheduled Boswell trial, defendant raised for the

first time the contentions that Boswell’s sexual harassment claims were barred for failure to exhaust

administrative remedies and for failure to specifically allege sexual harassment claims in the complaint,

despite the fact that defendant’s own motion for summary judgment moved on those claims. The Court

denied defendant’s motions in orders filed September 8 and 19, 2006, and found that the Court had

jurisdiction because Boswell had exhausted her remedies. Defendant’s untimely answer again asserts

these defenses.

2

for summary judgment. The fact that the procedural history of this case is somewhat unusual because

the case originally was part of the Satchell action does not supply “excusable neglect,” particularly when

the late answer is filed after almost three years of protracted litigation and two jury trials.

The Court further finds that the filing of a late answer would prejudice plaintiffs because of the

advanced stage of this litigation. Defendant states that all of the defenses asserted in the answer have

been raised at some point during this litigation, and thus plaintiffs will not suffer any harm. If defendant

is correct, the late answer is surplusage and defendant will not be prejudiced because it has raised those

defenses and preserved them for appeal. However, if defendant has actually asserted new defenses, as

plaintiffs claim, plaintiffs would be prejudiced by their late assertion.1

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that defendant has failed to establish “excusable

neglect” for its failure to timely file an answer. Accordingly, the Court exercises its discretion and

GRANTS plaintiffs’ motion to strike the untimely answer (Docket No. 656), DENIES defendant’s

motion for an enlargement of time (Docket No. 661), and STRIKES Docket No. 653.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 12, 2007 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-00098-SI Document 674 Filed 01/12/07 Page 2 of 2