Opinion ID: 4248048
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Defendants’ motion for an extension of time

Text: In their motion for an extension of time, Defendants argued that the district court should grant them an extension under Rule 6(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because their delay was due to excusable neglect. Defendants explained that, on January 9, 2017, Deputy Norman Lewis was killed in the line of the duty. 3 Case: 17-10478 Date Filed: 02/23/2018 Page: 4 of 11 Deputy Lewis was a member of the same unit as Defendants Michael Johnson, Kevin Johnson, and Michael Lappas. After attending a mediation conference on January 10, Defendants’ counsel learned that there would be two funeral services to honor Deputy Lewis: one in Orlando, where Lewis and Defendants worked, and one in Port Charlotte, Deputy Lewis’s hometown. 1 The Orlando funeral was originally scheduled for Friday, January 13, 2017, and the Port Charlotte funeral was originally scheduled for Saturday, January 14, 2017.2 The three Defendants who served on Deputy Lewis’s unit planned to participate in both funerals. One of those Defendants, Michael Johnson, had been selected to offer a eulogy at the Port Charlotte service. Counsel explained that, in order to accommodate Defendants’ plans to participate in the funerals, he cancelled an office conference scheduled for Friday, January 13, 2017, where he had planned to review the motion for summary judgment with Defendants and obtain their affidavits in support of the motion. That meeting was rescheduled for Monday, January 16, 2017—the day that the motion for summary judgment was due. On the morning of January 16, 2017, Defendants’ counsel learned that the Port Charlotte funeral had been rescheduled for 2:00 p.m. that day—Monday, 1 Port Charlotte is more than 100 miles from Orlando. 2 We note that, according to Defendants’ initial brief on appeal, the Port Charlotte funeral was originally scheduled for Sunday, January 15, not, as stated in their motion, Saturday, January 14. 4 Case: 17-10478 Date Filed: 02/23/2018 Page: 5 of 11 January 16, 2017—because Deputy Lewis’s mother had taken ill. Because of that change, the three Defendants participating in the Port Charlotte funeral were not expected to return to Orlando until late in the evening of January 16. 3 Defendants’ counsel immediately telephoned Destra’s counsel and informed him of the situation. Defendants’ counsel also explained his understanding that, because January 16, 2017, was a legal holiday—the day on which Martin Luther King, Jr.’s birthday is officially observed—the deadline for Defendants’ motion automatically extended to the following day. Defendants’ counsel then informed Defendants that the meeting scheduled for January 16, 2017, would be cancelled so they could participate in the funeral services. On Tuesday, January 17, 2017, Defendants met with their counsel, reviewed the motion for summary judgment, and executed their affidavits. The motion was filed the same day. B. Destra’s response to Defendants’ motion for an extension of time Destra opposed Defendants’ motion for an extension of time. In Destra’s response to that motion, Destra’s counsel acknowledged receiving Defendants’ counsel’s phone call on January 16, but emphasized that he did not consent to the late filing or otherwise agree that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment would be timely if filed on January 17. In arguing that Defendants could not show 3 In their brief on appeal, Defendants note that some of them did not return to Orlando until after 10:00 p.m. 5 Case: 17-10478 Date Filed: 02/23/2018 Page: 6 of 11 excusable neglect, Destra noted that Defendants could have filed their motion for summary judgment at any time before the January 16, 2017, deadline, and contended that there was “no indication that counsel could not meet or confer with the Defendants on January 11, January 12, January 13, January 14, or January 15, 2017, or at any date prior to those dates.” He further noted that Defendants’ counsel could have electronically filed the motion even on days when the courthouse was closed, as it was on January 16. Destra then argued that Defendants had not only failed to show excusable neglect, but that excusable neglect was not the correct standard to apply to their motion. Instead, the proper standard was “good cause” under Rule 16(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. C. The district court’s ruling on Defendants’ motion for an extension of time In a paperless endorsed order entered on January 23, 2017, the district court denied Defendants’ motion for an extension of time. The district court did not explain its reasoning. Defendants then took this appeal from the district court’s January 18 order striking their motion for summary judgment and its January 23 order denying their motion for an extension of time. 4 4 We have jurisdiction to review a district court’s refusal to hear a defendant’s claim of qualified immunity on timeliness grounds. See McElroy v. City of Macon, 68 F.3d 437, 437–38, 438 n. (11th Cir. 1995); Hill v. Dekalb Reg’l Youth Det. Ctr., 40 F.3d 1176, 1182–84, 1184 n.15 (11th Cir. 1994), overruled in part on other grounds by Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002). In the circumstances presented here, this jurisdiction extends to the district court’s January 23, 2017, 6 Case: 17-10478 Date Filed: 02/23/2018 Page: 7 of 11