Reported / Citable
Background
Jacoby Pierre Prosper sued Equifax Information Services, Experian Information Solutions, Inc., and TransUnion LLC. After Prosper failed to attend an initial conference, the court accepted his explanation and entered a scheduling order setting February 16, 2026, as the amended-pleadings deadline. Prosper did not seek leave to amend by that date, and Experian later moved for judgment on the pleadings.
The court subsequently gave Prosper until May 8, 2026, to amend his complaint, denied pending dismissal motions as moot, and stayed discovery. Prosper missed that deadline as well. After the court reinstated the defendants’ Rule 12 motions on June 8, Prosper moved for leave to file an amended complaint out of time, attributing his delay to a change of mailing address and attaching the proposed pleading.
The Court’s Holding
The court reluctantly granted Prosper’s motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b). Applying the equitable excusable-neglect analysis, it found that the delay appeared to have been within Prosper’s control and that the timing of his filings was suspect, but it could not conclude that he had acted in bad faith.
The court also determined that the delay would not unduly prejudice the defendants or significantly affect the case’s progress. It directed the clerk to file the proposed pleading as the First Amended Complaint, vacated the order reinstating the defendants’ Rule 12 motions, and gave the defendants until July 8, 2026, to answer or otherwise move under Rule 12.
Key Takeaways
- Rule 6(b) permits an expired deadline to be extended for good cause when the failure to act resulted from excusable neglect.
- A delay within the movant’s control did not defeat relief where the court found no bad faith, undue prejudice, or substantial disruption to the case.
- The court warned Prosper that future failures to monitor the docket or comply with orders could result in sanctions, including a recommendation of dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates that excusable neglect is evaluated equitably rather than through a single dispositive factor. Although Prosper’s explanation and filing history weighed against him, the absence of bad faith, undue prejudice, and significant case disruption supported allowing the late amendment.
The ruling also underscores that parties must diligently monitor the docket, follow court orders, and promptly update their contact information. The court made clear that similar excuses would not be accepted going forward.