Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02512/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02512-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Michael K. Kelly, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Unum Life Insurance Co. of America, a

Maine corporation; and the Welfare

Benefit Plan Administrative Committee of

Snell & Wilmer, L.L.P., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-2512-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Defendants originally filed their Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #24) on

February 3, 2009. The Court struck that original Motion on February 5, 2009 (Doc. #28)

because the parties had stipulated to file more than necessary under seal. Defendants re-filed

their Motion for Summary Judgment on February 18, 2009. Plaintiff did not file a response

in opposition. After a review of the merits, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion on April

14, 2009. (Doc. #31). A month later, on May 14, 2009, Plaintiff filed a Rule 60(b) Motion

for Relief from Order Granting Summary Judgment (Doc. #33).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) allows a court to relieve a party from a final

judgment for: “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect,” newly discovered

evidence, fraud, etc. Fed.R.Civ.P. 61(b)(1-6). Plaintiff’s attorney argues the Court should

relieve Plaintiff from the summary judgment for excusable neglect. Whether to grant a Rule

60(b) Motion is within the Court’s discretion. Bateman v. United States Postal Serv., 231

Case 2:07-cv-02512-JAT Document 35 Filed 05/26/09 Page 1 of 4
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 - 2 -

F.3d 1220, 1223 (9th Cir. 2000). 

 “‘[E]xcusable neglect’ covers negligence on the part of counsel.” Id. In determining

whether neglect is “excusable,” the Court considers at least the following four factors: “(1)

the danger of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential

impact on the proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the movant acted in

good faith.” Id. at 1223-24.

The Court will consider factors one, two, and four first, then discuss the third factor

in more detail. Prejudice – Discovery has closed in this case, and the Court has not set a trial

date. Relieving Plaintiff from the summary judgment would not cause much prejudice to

Defendants, other than forcing them to file a reply and perhaps continue defending the case

at trial. Delay – Plaintiff filed the pending Motion three months after Defendants filed their

Motion for Summary Judgment and approximately one month after the Court ruled on the

Motion. If the Court were to grant Plaintiff’s request, Plaintiff’s delay would cause the Court

to revisit a Motion that the Court already has reviewed, analyzed, and decided. Bad faith –

Although Plaintiff’s counsel offers somewhat confusing explanations for his failure to

respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment, it does not appear that he acted in bad faith.

Reason for the delay – Plaintiff’s counsel offers two excuses for his failure to respond

to the summary judgment motion: failure to calendar the deadline for the response and

attendance at a funeral. Plaintiff’s counsel submitted a Declaration with the pending Rule

60(b) Motion explaining that when the Court struck the original Motion for Summary

Judgment, counsel took the deadline to respond off his calendar. (Declaration, Doc. #34-2,

¶4). When the Motion was re-filed, he “apparently forgot to put the deadline for responding

to the motion back on to [his] calendar.” (Id. ¶6).

Counsel further explains that he had to travel suddenly to his uncle’s funeral in Ohio

in the first week of March. (Id. ¶7). Counsel claims that because he had to attend the Ohio

funeral, he asked opposing counsel for an extension of time to file a response to the Motion

for Summary Judgment and to file a reply due in parallel litigation, which opposing counsel

Case 2:07-cv-02512-JAT Document 35 Filed 05/26/09 Page 2 of 4
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 - 3 -

“granted.” (Id. at ¶¶7-8). When he returned from the funeral, counsel remembered to file

the reply in the parallel litigation, “but forgot about the re-filed motion in the present case.”

(Id. at ¶9). Counsel for Plaintiff claims that he did not remember that Defendants had re-filed

their Motion for Summary Judgment until he received the Court’s Order granting the Motion.

(Id. ¶10). Counsel does not state why he waited almost a month after receiving notice of the

Court’s Order to file the pending Rule 60(b) motion.

Plaintiff’s response to the Motion for Summary Judgment was due approximately on

March 24, 2009, giving Plaintiff three days for mailing. Plaintiff’s counsel had to attend a

funeral in Ohio the week of March 1st through the 7th. While the Court sympathizes with

Plaintiff’s counsel’s loss, the Court does not understand why counsel’s attendance at a

funeral that week would prevent him from filing a response by March 24th.

Nor does the Court understand how counsel could reasonably rely on opposing

counsel “granting” him an extension for the response. Only the Court can grant an extension

of a Court deadline. Moreover, the fact that Plaintiff’s counsel asked opposing counsel for

an extension to file the response contradicts his statement that he completely forgot about the

re-filed Motion until the Court’s Order. Counsel obviously remembered the Motion at the

time he requested an extension from opposing counsel.

Counsel offers confusing and completely unsatisfactory reasons for failing to file a

response to the Motion for Summary Judgment. If the Court were to allow Plaintiff relief

from the Order based on these flimsy excuses, it would be hard to imagine a situation that

would not qualify as “excusable neglect.” Even though Defendants would not suffer much

prejudice if the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion, given Plaintiff’s counsel’s complete lack

of an acceptable and cogent explanation for his negligence, the Court finds that the factors

weigh in favor of denying the Motion.

Further, the Court notes that the Court did not grant the Motion for Summary

Judgment as a sanction for Plaintiff’s failure to respond. The Court granted the Motion only

after a consideration of the merits of the case. The Court therefore doubts whether a Rule

Case 2:07-cv-02512-JAT Document 35 Filed 05/26/09 Page 3 of 4
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 - 4 -

60(b) motion is even appropriate.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED DENYING Plaintiff’s Rule 60(b) Motion for Relief from Order

Granting Summary Judgment (Doc. #33).

DATED this 26th day of May, 2009.

Case 2:07-cv-02512-JAT Document 35 Filed 05/26/09 Page 4 of 4