Akron Board of Education v. Wallace, 5:16-cv-00188

Background

Plaintiff Akron Board of Education sued Defendants Jason Wallace, Daniel Bache, and Wallace & Bache, LLP; Defendants filed an Answer and a Counterclaim to the First Amended Complaint on October 9, 2017 without leave of court.
The Court had previously granted Defendants a 14-day extension to file an answer, tying the deadline to entry of judgment in a related administrative appeal (making the answer due October 6, 2017).
Plaintiff moved to strike the untimely Answer and Counterclaim; Defendants opposed and asked in the alternative for leave and argued any lateness was excusable neglect.
The Court analyzed excusable neglect under Rule 6(b) and Pioneer factors, weighing prejudice, delay length, reasons, control, and good faith.
The Court allowed the late-filed Answer (finding delay short and prejudice minimal) but struck the Counterclaim as prejudicial, futile, and barred by res judicata/claim preclusion given the related administrative appeal.
As a result, Plaintiff’s motions for extension of time and to dismiss were denied as moot; the Answer remains on the docket and the Counterclaim is stricken in full.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Defendants’ late Answer/Counterclaim should be struck for untimely filing	The filings missed the court-ordered October 6 cutoff and were filed without leave; thus they should be struck.	The Answer and Counterclaim were timely or, if untimely, the delay is excusable neglect and the court should permit them.	Court allowed the late Answer (excusable neglect factors favored leave) but struck the Counterclaim.
Whether excusable neglect justifies accepting late filings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)	Plaintiff: no—deadlines matter and no good cause for extension.	Defendants: delay was short, no prejudice, and thus excusable neglect permits acceptance.	Court applied Pioneer factors and found excusable neglect for the Answer but not for the Counterclaim.
Whether permitting the Counterclaim would prejudice Plaintiff and disrupt case schedule	Plaintiff: adding a Counterclaim now would prejudice Plaintiff and derail discovery and dispositive motion deadlines.	Defendants: did not dispute prejudice strongly; sought leave to litigate retaliation claim.	Court held permitting counterclaim would cause prejudice and delay and so denied leave.
Whether the proposed Counterclaim is barred or futile (res judicata / claim preclusion)	Plaintiff: the retaliation counterclaim re-litigates matters decided in the related administrative appeal and is barred.	Defendants: alleged retaliation claim arises from Plaintiff’s fee action and should be heard.	Court held counterclaim is barred by res judicata/claim preclusion and would be futile, so struck it.

Key Cases Cited

Nafziger v. McDermott Int’l, Inc., 467 F.3d 514 (6th Cir. 2006) (excusable neglect analysis and trial court discretion under Rule 6).
Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380 (1993) (factors for excusable neglect).
Clark v. Johnston, 413 F. App’x 804 (6th Cir. 2011) (federal courts prefer disposition on the merits).
Mommaerts v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 472 F.3d 967 (7th Cir. 2007) (allowing a short post-deadline answer where delay was harmless).
United States ex rel. Sheldon v. Kettering Health Network, 816 F.3d 399 (6th Cir. 2016) (elements of res judicata / claim preclusion).
Smith v. Lerner, Sampson & Rothfuss, L.P.A., 658 F. App’x 268 (6th Cir. 2016) (same claim-preclusion test applies regardless of prior role).
Leary v. Daeschner, 349 F.3d 888 (6th Cir. 2003) (Rule 16 good-cause standard and prejudice consideration for schedule modifications).
Hensley v. Eckenhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (attorney-fee litigation should not spawn a second major litigation).