MAX O. COGBURN, JR., Judge
THIS MATTER is before the court upon plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply [Response] Brief and Motion to Amend Complaint. Defendants filed their motions and supporting memoranda of law not later than July 28, 2000, making plaintiff's response thereto due to be filed not later than August 14, 2000. No response was filed. On August 18, 2000, the undersigned entered its Memorandum and Recommendation, which recommended dismissal based on plaintiff's failure to prosecute. That same day, respective counsel entered consent in accordance with 28, United States Code, Section 636(c), and the district court referred this action to the undersigned for final disposition.
Where a court-imposed deadline is missed, Rule 6, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requires a showing of excusable neglect. In this case, plaintiff's counsel indicates that no response was filed due to his increased workload based on an associate leaving his firm. Review of the court's docket reveals that no associate ever made an appearance in this matter on behalf of plaintiff; therefore, the error was attributable to a failure to pay close attention to the deadlines in this case, rather than a more general failure to supervise staff. Counsel's failure to respond, therefore, was occasioned by "inadvertence, mistake, or carelessness,"Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Assoc. Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380 (1993), thereby constituting neglect. In Pioneer, which was a bankruptcy matter, the Supreme Court held, as follows:
Our view that the phrase "excusable neglect" found in Bankruptcy Rule 9006(b)(1) is not limited as petitioner would have it is also strongly supported by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which use that phrase in several places. Indeed, Rule 9006(b)(1) was patterned after Rule 6(b) of those Rules. Under Rule 6(b), where the specified period for the performance of an act has elapsed, a district court may enlarge the period and permit the tardy act where the omission is the "result of excusable neglect." As with Rule 9006(b)(1), there is no indication that anything other than the commonly accepted meaning of the phrase was intended by its drafters. It is not surprising, then, that in applying Rule 6(b), the Courts of Appeals have generally recognized that "excusable neglect" may extend to inadvertent delays. Although inadvertence, ignorance of the rules, or mistakes construing the rules do not usually constitute "excusable" neglect it is clear a "excusable neglect" under Rule 6(b) is a somewhat "elastic concept" and is not limited strictly to omissions caused by circumstances beyond the control of the movant.
* * *
FN10. In assessing what constitutes "excusable neglect" under Rule 13(f), the lower courts have looked, inter alia, to the good faith of the claimant, the extent of the delay, and the danger of prejudice to the opposing party.
Id., at 391-92 (citations omitted; footnotes omitted). After receiving notice of the failure, plaintiff's counsel took reasonable steps to remedy the error by securing from counsel for defendants their consent to the Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply [Response] Brief. Plaintiff's prompt remedial steps are indicative of the good faith of counsel. Excusable neglect having been shown by counsel for plaintiff, the court will allow plaintiff to file a response out-of-time.
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that
(1) the previously entered Memorandum and Recommendation is
WITHDRAWN;
(2) plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply [Response] Brief is
ALLOWED, and plaintiff is allowed up to and inclusive of September 29, 2000, to file his
RESPONSE; and
(3) plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint is
ALLOWED, and plaintiff is allowed up to and inclusive of September 29, 2000, to so file.