Miller v. Loibl et al, No. 1:2011cv02182 - Document 93 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)

Court Description: OPINION: Furthermore, refusal to permit the untimely motion would prevent the continuation of what may be an otherwise-meritorious action. See Staggersv. Otto Gerdau Co., 359 F.2d 292, 296 (2d Cir. 1966).The motion is granted. Plaintiff's deadline to move under Rule 25(a) is extended until March 8, 2013. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Thomas P. Griesa on 2/22/2013) (ama)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------x USDCSDNY . DOCUMENT ELECfRONICALLY FILED DOC#: ____________ DATEFlLED: tv, AA. ~t3 . GARY MILLER Plaintiff, 11 Civ. 2182 v. OPINION BERN LOIBL, et al., Defendants. --------------------------------------------x Plaintiff Gary Miller moves to extend his time to move to replace the recently-deceased Bern Loibl with Loibl's estate as a defendant in this suit. Miller could not move to substitute the defendant within the 90 days allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a) due to his apparently-mistaken belief that no executor had yet been appointed to Loibl's estate (a mistake that, it seems, defendant's counsel was aware of but made no effort to correct). He concedes that it was out of mere carelessness that he failed to move for additional time within the 90 days allowed. His deadline to move was January 7,2013 but he did not move until January 18, 2013, eleven days later. Nonetheless, Miller's neglect in discovering the executor's appointment is excusable, and defendant can have suffered no conceivable prejudice due to the delay. Furthermore, refusal to permit the untimely motion would prevent the continuation of what may be an otherwise-meritorious action. See Staggers v. Otto erdau Co., 359 F.2d 292, 296 (2d Cir. 1966). G The motion is granted. Plaintiff's deadline to move under Rule 25(a) is extended until March 8, 2013. So ordered. Dated: New York, New York February 22, 2013 Thomas P. Griesa United States District Judge

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.