THE LOGAN CENTERS, INC., ET AL. v. CARLA WALKER, AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF ANTONIO COZART
No. CV-15-442
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II
DECEMBER 2, 2015
2015 Ark. App. 687
HONORABLE L.T. SIMES II, JUDGE
APPEAL FROM THE ST. FRANCIS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. CV-13-49-1]; REVERSED AND REMANDED
This is the second time this case has been before this court. As we explained in the original opinion, appellee, Carla Walker, as administratrix of the estate of Antonio Cozart (Estate), filed a complaint instituting medical-malpractice and wrongful-death actions against appellants, The Logan Centers, Inc., et al. (Logan Centers). Logan Centers, Inc. v. Walker, 2014 Ark. App. 203. Before expiration of the time to respond to the complaint, Logan Centers’ counsel filed a notice of appearance and motion for extension of time to respond to the complaint pursuant to
On remand, the trial court heard arguments on the motion and again denied the motion for extension in an order dated February 2, 2015, finding in part that Logan Centers never presented to the court or requested the court to rule on its motion for extension before the expiration of the time required to answer the Estate‘s complaint and that the records and oral presentations made by Logan Centers in support of the motion for extension lacked credible evidentiary proof. The trial court again struck Logan Centers’ answer as untimely and reinstated its grant of a default judgment against it. The instant appeal followed.
In this appeal, Logan Centers contends that: 1) on remand, the trial court erred in denying Logan Centers’ timely motion for an extension of time to respond to the complaint, and 2) the trial court erred in striking Logan Centers’ answer and entering a default judgment under
Logan Centers first contends the trial court erred as a matter of law in finding that
We employ an abuse-of-discretion standard in reviewing a trial court‘s decision to grant or deny a motion for extension of time pursuant to
(b) Enlargement. When by these Rules or by a notice given thereunder or by order of the court an act is required or allowed to be done at or within a specified time, the court for cause shown may at any time in its discretion (1) with or without motion or notice, order the period enlarged if request therefor is made before the expiration of the period originally prescribed or as extended by a previous order[.]
(Emphasis added.) In our original opinion, we explained the differences in subsections (1) and (2), and we quoted with approval a discussion concerning
A showing of mistake (or inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect) is necessary under Rule 6(b) only when the motion for extension of time is filed after the applicable filing period has already expired. When a motion is made before the filing period has expired, those factors need not be shown, and it is necessary only to “show cause” under the less stringent standard applicable to Rule 6(b)(1). There are no Arkansas cases differentiating between these standards, but the notes to Rule 6 indicate that it is virtually identical to the federal rule. With respect to the federal rules, the leading authority states:
Rule 6(b)(1)(A) gives the court wide discretion to grant a request for additional time that is made prior to the expiration of the period originally prescribed or prior to the expiration of the period as extended by a previous enlargement order. However, at least two courts of appeals have held that an extension is effective only if the court explicitly extends the time period under Rule 6(b); a request for a status report and the continued administration of the case after the expiration date are not evidence of an implied extension under Rule 6(b).
Because the district court may exercise its discretion under Rule 6(b)(1) only “for good cause,”1 a party must demonstrate some justification for the
issuance of the extension. However, an application for the enlargement of time under Rule 6(b)(1) normally will be granted in the absence of bad faith on the part of the party seeking relief or prejudice to the adverse party. Neither a formal motion for enlargement nor notice to the adverse party is expressly required by the rule.
Logan Centers, 2014 Ark. App. 203, at 3 (emphasis added). In our original opinion, after explaining the different treatment under the rule concerning motions for extension filed after the expiration of an applicable time period versus those filed before, we then further explained,
It is true that a motion to extend time to file an answer is not a substitute for filing an answer and does not automatically extend the time for filing an answer under Rule 12. But that is not the issue here. The question, instead, is whether the trial court erred in applying the Rule 6(b)(2) standard that requires a showing of facts constituting mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, instead of the “show cause” standard of Rule 6(b)(1) that ”normally will be granted in the absence of bad faith on the part of the party seeking relief or prejudice to the adverse party.” We hold that the Rule 6(b)(1) standard is applicable here, and we reverse and remand for further consistent proceedings.
Id. at 4 (emphasis added) (citations omitted).
On remand, Logan Centers submitted to the trial court affidavits in support of its request for an extension. Its counsel also filed an affidavit, laying out a detailed time line of events that provided in part:
- Jeannie Boeckmann (now Sherman) as agent for the Logan Centers was served with the complaint on April 23, 2014 [sic];
- Ms. Sherman contacted her personal attorney, Paul Ford, as well as the insurance agent and the claim was reported on May 7, 2013;
- Notice was received by the insurance carrier on May 9, 2013;
- The insurance carrier communicated with attorney Paul Ford during the initial investigative process including communication with Ms. Sherman;
- On May 17, 2013, after confirming no conflicts of interest, the insurance carrier assigned my firm as defense counsel;
- On May 19, 2013, the formal assignment was received by my office;
- On May 20, 2013, I had an initial conference with Ms. Sherman and Mr. Ford regarding the Complaint and additional investigation and action plan;
- On May 21, 2013, after I received no response to various communications sent to Plaintiff‘s counsel regarding an extension and the proper party defendants, I filed a Notice of Appearance and timely Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to the Complaint requesting an additional twenty days and as cause stated that there were Defendants who were not proper and I had recently received the assignment and needed additional time to respond.
In its order following remand, the trial court explained its basis for denial of the motion as follows:
- The Court finds that the defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time was filed on May 22, 2013. The defendants never presented to the Court or requested the Court to rule on its Motion for Extension before the expiration of the time required to answer the plaintiffs’ complaint.
- The Court finds that the records and oral presentation made by the defendants in support of their Motion for Extension lacks credible evidentiary proof therefore, the Motion for Extension is denied.
(Emphasis added.) The trial court‘s decision focused on a matter not even required by the rule—the lack of a request to rule on the motion for extension that had already been timely filed.
Reversed and remanded.
HIXSON and HOOFMAN, JJ., agree.
Hagwood Adelman Tipton, PC, by: Rebecca Adelman, for appellant.
Wilson Law Firm, P.A., by: E. Dion Wilson and Don Etherly; Harris Shelton Hanover Walsh, PLLC, by: Christopher S. Campbell and Michael F. Rafferty, for appellee.