Plaintiff's Attorney's Reference to A Busy Schedule Rejected as an Excuse for Failure to Timely Serve a Defendant

Being Busy as a Bee No Excuse

In the case of Gunter v. Drexel University, No. 2:24-cv-01443-JDW (E.D. Pa. July 12, 2024 Wolson, J.), the court denied the Plaintiff’s request for relief from the court’s Order of dismissal which had been entered due to the Plaintiff’s failure to timely serve the Defendant with her federal court Complaint. 

The court held that the excuse preferred by Plaintiff’s counsel, namely that she was a solo practitioner with a busy schedule, failed to demonstrate good cause or excusable neglect for her failure to timely serve the Defendant.

According to the Opinion, over two (2) months after the Plaintiff filed suit against the Defendant for alleged disability discrimination, the court sua sponte ordered that the Plaintiff accomplish service by a specified date and cautioned the Plaintiff that her suit would be dismissed if she failed to provide proof of service by the court’s deadline. When the Plaintiff did not complete service, the court dismissed the Complaint.

With regards to the follow-up Motion addressed in this decision, the court dismissed the Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from the dismissal and held that she failed to demonstrate grounds for relief pursuant to F. R.C.P. 60(b)(6).

The court rejected the Plaintiff’s attorney’s reference to her busy calendar as an excuse and noted that counsel was accountable for all of the cases that she took on and was obliged to manage her case load accordingly.

Judge Wolson started his Opinion by writing, "Lawyers are busy people.  It's an inescapable part of the profession.  But that doesn't excuse them from complying with deadlines, both personal and professional."

The court otherwise noted that the Plaintiff failed in the requirement to show that, without relief from the court’s order, “an extreme and unexpected hardship would occur.”  

Accordingly, the court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of its Order of Dismissal, which the court noted had been entered without prejudice.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source “The Legal Intelligencer Federal Case Alert,” www.Law.com (Aug. 9, 2024).