Cohen v. Board of Trustees of the University
422 U.S. App. D.C. 129
| D.C. Cir. | 2016Background
- Cohen, a tenured UDC professor, was terminated in 2010 and sued the Board and officials alleging, among other things, deprivation of procedural due process.
- Defendants removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
- Cohen’s counsel missed the deadline to oppose the motion, later sought an extension under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b), filed a late opposition, and moved to amend the complaint.
- The district court denied the extension (finding no excusable neglect), refused to consider the late opposition, applied D.D.C. Local Rule 7(b) to treat the motion as conceded, and dismissed the complaint and the case with prejudice.
- Cohen’s post-judgment motions (for reconsideration and for leave to amend) were denied; he appealed.
- The D.C. Circuit affirmed denial of the extension and the 12(b)(6) dismissal but reversed the dismissal with prejudice and the dismissal of the case, allowing Cohen to file an amended complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel’s failure to timely oppose warranted relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b) (excusable neglect) | Counsel misread the electronic docket and thus missed the filing deadline; mistake was inadvertent and excusable | Counsel’s mistake showed no reasonable excuse; patterns of tardiness harmed docket management | District court did not abuse discretion in denying extension — excusable neglect not shown (Pioneer factors applied) |
| Whether a district court may treat an unopposed 12(b)(6) motion as conceded under Local Rule 7(b) | Local Rule 7(b) improperly shifts burden to plaintiff; court should review merits before dismissing | Local rule is a valid docket-management tool and can be applied to unopposed motions | Court affirmed use of Local Rule 7(b) to grant the 12(b)(6) motion (dismissal on the merits was permissible given no considered opposition) |
| Whether dismissal should be with prejudice (and the case dismissed) or without prejudice when dismissal followed a procedural concession/late opposition | Cohen promptly sought to remedy the omission, acted in good faith, and defendants suffered no prejudice; harsh sanction unwarranted | Plaintiff’s repeated tardiness justified preclusive sanction | Dismissal with prejudice and dismissal of the case were an abuse of discretion; remanded so Cohen may file an amended complaint (dismissal should be without prejudice) |
| Whether district court erred denying leave to amend / reconsider under Rules 59(e) and 60(b) | Relief appropriate to correct error or for excusable neglect; amendment should be allowed | No extraordinary circumstances warranting relief; district court acted within discretion | Court did not reach merits of amendment denial; ruling that Cohen may file amended complaint moots that issue on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380 (1993) (framework for evaluating "excusable neglect" under Rule 6(b))
- Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (effect of dismissing a complaint vs. dismissing a case on tolling and res judicata)
- Fox v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 389 F.3d 1291 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (upholding application of Local Rule 7(b) to grant unopposed motion to dismiss)
- Rudder v. Williams, 666 F.3d 790 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (relief appropriate when plaintiff makes belated attempt to retract an erroneous concession)
- Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.p.A., 560 U.S. 538 (2010) (preference for resolving disputes on the merits)
- Peterson v. Archstone Cmtys. LLC, 637 F.3d 416 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (delineating when dismissal as a sanction is appropriate)
- Yesudian ex rel. United States v. Howard Univ., 270 F.3d 969 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (applying Pioneer factors and granting deference to district courts on extensions)