7 F.Supp.3d 1278
Ct. Int'l Trade2014Background
- Rockwell seeks out-of-time extensions to keep 11 Reserve Calendar actions alive.
- Deadline for timely extension requests was May 27, 2014; Reserve Calendar deadline was June 23, 2014.
- Rockwell filed July 2, 2014, making motions 36 days late and after the deadline expired.
- Rule 83(c) would have required dismissal of all 11 actions if no extension was pending when the deadline expired.
- The court sua sponte issued an Order to Show Cause directing Rockwell to address excusable neglect under Pioneer and related standards.
- Court ultimately grants Rockwell’s amended out-of-time motions to extend time to remain on the Reserve Calendar, with significant reservations about future conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rockwell is entitled to out-of-time extensions. | Rockwell argues excusable neglect justifies extensions. | Government contends delays were not excusable neglect and extensions should be denied. | Denied eight; granted with reservations—extensions granted, but not as a blanket precedent. |
| Whether Pioneer excusable neglect standard applies to these out-of-time motions. | Rockwell claims Pioneer allows flexible, equitable relief. | Defendant argues Pioneer requires strong, fact-specific showing of excusable neglect. | Pioneer applied; Rockwell fails to show excusable neglect warrants relief in light of delay and conduct. |
| Whether dismissal under Rule 83(c) would have been proper absent relief. | Rockwell contends relief avoids harsh dismissal consequences. | Clerk’s automatic dismissal would be proper without pending motions. | Dismissal would have been proper; relief is constrained by the court’s standards but granted with caution. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pioneer Inv. Services v. Brunswick Associates, 507 U.S. 380 (U.S. 1993) (excusable neglect is equitable and fact-specific)
- Silivanch v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 333 F.3d 355 (2d Cir. 2003) (most important factor is reason for delay and control)
- Washington Int’l Ins. Co. v. United States, 16 CIT 480, 793 F. Supp. 1091 (CIT 1992) (attorney diligence and monitoring obligations; avoid reliance on clerk reminders)
- Wang Labs., Inc. v. United States, 16 CIT 468, 793 F. Supp. 1086 (CIT 1992) (counsel bears responsibility to monitor status; cannot rely on clerks)
- Napp Prods., Inc. v. United States, 22 CIT 1106 (CIT 1998) (automatic dismissal rules; failure to timely extend can foreclose relief)