Also known as: excusable negligence · Rule 60(b) neglect
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A party's failure to perform a required procedural act that a court will excuse because it resulted from an unexpected hindrance or reasonable reliance rather than carelessness or willful disregard.
Echo Systems received service of a complaint but its legal department misrouted the papers during a holiday shutdown. Counsel filed the answer four days late and moved for relief under Rule 60(b)(1). The court found the internal routing error created an unexpected hindrance that qualified as excusable neglect and set aside the resulting default.
Elise Everly's attorney suffered a sudden medical emergency that prevented timely filing of a post-trial motion. Upon recovery the attorney promptly sought an extension. The court granted relief because the illness constituted an unavoidable hindrance that excused the neglect under the applicable rule.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Empire Logistics delayed its answer after opposing counsel promised an extension that never materialized. When default was entered Empire moved for relief. The court excused the neglect because the party reasonably relied on the adverse party's representation rather than acting through its own carelessness.
Courts apply an equitable test that weighs the danger of prejudice to the opposing party, the length of the delay and its impact on proceedings, the reason for the delay, and whether the movant acted in good faith. The reason for the delay receives the greatest emphasis.
Supporting sources
Excusable neglect under Rule 60(b)(1) is a stricter standard that applies after a final judgment has been entered. Good cause under Rule 55(c) is more lenient and applies before judgment, focusing on whether the default was willful, the speed of corrective action, and the existence of a meritorious defense.
Supporting sources
No. Courts have held that inadvertence, ignorance of the rules, or mistakes in construing deadlines do not ordinarily constitute excusable neglect. Only extraordinary circumstances beyond the party's reasonable control will suffice.
Supporting sources
No. Rule 60(c)(1) requires that a motion based on mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect be made within a reasonable time and in no event more than one year after entry of the judgment.
Supporting sources
…representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reaspns: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect ... or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. ... A motion under this subdivision (b) does not affect the finality of a judgment or suspend its…