Honesty v. Bayhealth Medical Center Inc.
| Mae West Honesty |
| Bayhealth Medical Center Inc. |
| 1:2026cv00665 |
| June 8, 2026 |
| U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware |
| Colm F Connolly |
| Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Employment |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Fed. Question |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on June 15, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
ORAL ORDER: Having reviewed Defendant's Motion for an Extension of Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond to the Complaint (D.I. #6 ) (the Motion), the Motion is DENIED as Defendant has not shown good cause for the Court to extend the time for Defendant to answer beyond the time provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 81(c)(2). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A) ("When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time... if the court acts, or if a request is made, before the original time... expires"). Defendant asserts that it was served with a copy of the Complaint on May 11, 2026, D.I. 1 ¶ 2; D.I. 1-3 ¶ 2; D.I. 6 ¶ 3; see also D.I. 1-2 (Sheriff's Return indicating service of the Summons and Complaint on May 11), and that it retained counsel on May 15, D.I. 6 ¶¶ 4, 13, but has not shown any subsequent diligence or otherwise explained its delay in waiting to file its Motion to Extend Deadline to Answer or Otherwise Respond to the Complaint (D.I. 1-3) until the day of its original June 1 deadline to serve an answer in the Superior Court of Delaware, its failure to meet that original answer deadline, or its delay in waiting another week after that original answer deadline to remove the case to this Court and de facto receive a fourteen-day extension of time to answer the Complaint without the Superior Court of Delaware or this Court ordering such an extension. Ordered by Judge Colm F. Connolly on 6/12/2026. (mws)
|
| Filing 6 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond to the Complaint - filed by Bayhealth Medical Center Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order, #2 Rule 7.1.1 Certification, #3 Exhibit A, #4 Exhibit B)(Brannigan, Patrick) |
| Filing 5 JUDGE COLM F. CONNOLLY STANDING ORDERS. Parties shall comply with all applicable standing orders and consult the Court's website for updates. (mws) |
| Case Assigned to Judge Colm F. Connolly. Please include the initials of the Judge (CFC) after the case number on all documents filed. (alb) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE of Certificate of Filing in State Court by Bayhealth Medical Center Inc. re #1 Notice of Removal, (Attachments: #1 Exhibit)(Brannigan, Patrick) |
| Filing 3 Disclosure Statement pursuant to Rule 7.1: identifying Corporate Parent Bayhealth, Inc. for Bayhealth Medical Center Inc. filed by Bayhealth Medical Center Inc.. (Brannigan, Patrick) |
| Filing 2 Notice, Consent and Referral forms re: U.S. Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (mrr) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL and copies of documents from DE Superior Court, Case Number K26C-04-031 (NEP) (Filing fee $405, receipt number ADEDC-4987797)- filed by Bayhealth Medical Center Inc. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Civil Cover Sheet)(mrr) |
| DEFICIENCY NOTICE issued by the Court to Defendant: Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1 (b)(1), A party must: (1) file the disclosure statement with its first appearance, pleading, petition, motion, response, or other request addressed to the court. Counsel is requested to supplement the docket with an appropriate Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement. (mrr) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Delaware District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Honesty v. Bayhealth Medical Center Inc. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Mae West Honesty | |
| Represented By: | Felicia Brownell |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Bayhealth Medical Center Inc. | |
| Represented By: | Paul Seward |
| Represented By: | Patrick Brannigan |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
ORAL ORDER: Having reviewed Defendant's Motion for an Extension of Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond to the Complaint (D.I. #6 ) (the Motion), the Motion is DENIED as Defendant has not shown good cause for the Court to extend the time for Defendant to answer beyond the time provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 81(c)(2). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A) ("When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time... if the court acts, or if a request is made, before the original time... expires"). Defendant asserts that it was served with a copy of the Complaint on May 11, 2026, D.I. 1 ¶ 2; D.I. 1-3 ¶ 2; D.I. 6 ¶ 3; see also D.I. 1-2 (Sheriff's Return indicating service of the Summons and Complaint on May 11), and that it retained counsel on May 15, D.I. 6 ¶¶ 4, 13, but has not shown any subsequent diligence or otherwise explained its delay in waiting to file its Motion to Extend Deadline to Answer or Otherwise Respond to the Complaint (D.I. 1-3) until the day of its original June 1 deadline to serve an answer in the Superior Court of Delaware, its failure to meet that original answer deadline, or its delay in waiting another week after that original answer deadline to remove the case to this Court and de facto receive a fourteen-day extension of time to answer the Complaint without the Superior Court of Delaware or this Court ordering such an extension. Ordered by Judge Colm F. Connolly on 6/12/2026. (mws)