Order | Filed: August 06, 2026
| Entered: August 06, 2026
NationStar Mortgage , LLC v. Stowell et al.
Real Property: Other | Massachusetts
Order on Motion for Extension of Time
Magistrate Judge Christopher L. Morgan: ELECTRONIC ORDER granting 19 Plaintiff's Emergency MOTION for Extension of Time to September 28, 2026 to Complete Service on Defendant, Jennifer Brunty.This is an interpleader action in which Plaintiff Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, seeks authority to disburse surplus funds in its possession following a foreclosure sale (Dkt. No. 1-1, at 1). Nationstar alleges that Defendant Jennifer Brunty is one of the individuals who may have an interest in the surplus funds (id., 17), but it failed to timely complete service on her. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B) and L.R. 4.1(b), Nationstar seeks an extension of time to effectuate service, claiming that its failure to serve Ms. Brunty constitutes excusable neglect. When evaluating a claim of excusable neglect, the court considers (1) "the danger of prejudice to the [opposing party]"; (2) "the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings"; (3) "the reason for the delay"; and (4) "whether the movant acted in good faith." Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993). Ultimately, "the determination [of excusable neglect] is at bottom an equitable one, taking account of all relevant circumstances surrounding the party's omission." Id.
In this case, the court finds that Nationstar has established excusable neglect for its delay in completing service on Ms. Brunty. The court is not aware of any prejudice to Ms. Brunty if the extension is granted given that this is an interpleader action and Ms. Brunty would potentially receive a payment from Nationstar if she appears. Moreover, although the length of the delay is significant, the court finds it weighs neither for nor against a finding of excusable neglect given that the delay has had no real impact on this litigation, which is still in its early stages. See, e.g., Lesowitz v. Tittle, No. 5:17-CV-2174, 2020 WL 3617923, at *4 (N.D. Ohio July 2, 2020) (delay of nearly a year "neither weighs for nor against a finding of excusable neglect" given "the slight impact on the proceedings"). The reason for the delay-the inattention of Nationstar's prior counsel to the question of whether service was complete-weighs heavily against a finding of excusable neglect. Dimmitt v. Ockenfels, 407 F.3d 21, 24 (1st Cir. 2005) ("counsels' inattention or carelessness... normally does not constitute excusable neglect" (internal punctuation omitted)). But there is no evidence that Nationstar intentionally delayed seeking relief from the court to gain some tactical advantage. And, when Nationstar's current counsel was assigned to this matter, he immediately filed the instant motion to remedy the service error. Thus, the fact that Ms. Brunty would potentially benefit if service is completed, the fact that the delay has had minimal impact, if any, on the judicial proceedings, and the reality that the delay in service was not the result of any bad faith by Nationstar, outweigh the reason for the delay, and ultimately lead this court to the conclusion that Nationstar has established excusable neglect for its failure to complete service. The court therefore grants Nationstar's motion and directs it to complete service on Ms. Brunty on or before September 28, 2026. The court further orders Nationstar notify the court once service of Ms. Brunty is complete.
(MPZ)