Franzo v. Marriott International

           IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                       
       FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA                    
                  CHARLOTTE DIVISION                                 
                      3:24cv782-GCM                                  

LAURA FRANZO,                 )                                           
                         )                                           
Plaintiff,               )                                           
                         )                                           
vs.                           )         ORDER                             
                         )                                           
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC.,  )                                          
dba CHARLOTTE CITY CENTER,    )                                           
                         )                                           
Defendant.               )                                           
____________________________________)                                     

This matter is before the Court upon the Defendant’s Motion for Extension of Time to 
File Responsive Pleadings and Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Default. (Doc. No. 10). The 
Plaintiff has filed a response in opposition. (Doc. Nos. 11 and 13). Defendant has filed a Notice 
that it does not intend to file a Reply. Accordingly, this matter is ripe for disposition. 
The pro se Plaintiff filed her Complaint on August 27, 2024, alleging “wrongful 
termination based on age discrimination, retaliation, violation of fair labor standards, harassment, 
and defamation of character.” (Doc. No. 1).  The Court issued two summonses, one to “Marriott 
Charlotte City Center” with an address of 100 W. Trade Street, Charlotte, NC 28202, and the 
other to “Marriott International, Inc.” with an address of 10400 Fernwood Rd., Bethesda, MD 
20817. According to Defendant, “Marriott Charlotte City Center” is a business name used by the 
Marriott hotel located at 100 W. Trade St. Charlotte, NC 28202, but is not a separate legal entity. 
Moreover, Marriott International, Inc. has not operated at the Fernwood Road address since 
2022. Plaintiff personally mailed copies of the Complaint and each respective summons to the 
addresses listed on each summons. See Doc. No. 8.  Neither address was the office of the 
registered agent, or any officer, director or managing agent of the Defendant registered in North 
Carolina. However, Marriott International, Inc. eventually received the summons and Complaint 
on October 9, 2024, after it was returned to the post office.             
Defendant alleges that there were initial questions about whether any Marriott entity had 
been properly named as a party or properly served. Due to the confusion surrounding the receipt 
of the summons and complaint after it was returned to the post office, Defendant states that a 

response deadline was incorrectly calendared by outside counsel. Once the mistake was 
discovered, counsel called Plaintiff to request an extension to respond. Plaintiff refused to 
consent.                                                                  
Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows the Court to extend a deadline after 
the expiration of that deadline for good cause if the delinquent party has failed to act because of 
excusable neglect. In an instance of an omission by counsel, a district court balances the equities 
of all relevant circumstances surrounding the omission, including “the danger of prejudice to the 
[opposing party], the length of delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, the reason 
for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant, and whether 

the movant acted in good faith.” Gaskins v. BFI Waste Servs., LLC, 

281 F. App'x 255, 260

 (4th 
Cir. 2008) citing Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 

507 U.S. 380, 395

 
(1993). Ultimately, a district court may properly exercise its discretion to find excusable delay in 
the absence of “evidence of prejudice to [Plaintiff] or to judicial administration…, or any 
indication at all of bad faith.” Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co., 

507 U.S. at 398

. 
The Court is persuaded that Defendant has acted in good faith and that Plaintiff will 
suffer no prejudice by allowing the extension. Plaintiff will have an opportunity to litigate her 
case fully, and the short delay will have no impact on Plaintiff’s ability to assert her claims, 
engage in discovery, or corral evidence. Moreover, as no scheduling order has been entered, any 
delay does not impact any court proceedings. Given the confusion surrounding the named 
entities and the addresses used on the summonses, the Court finds that the circumstances 
surrounding the delay supports granting a brief extension due to excusable neglect. 
 Accordingly, for good cause shown, 
 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Extension of Time to File 
Responsive Pleadings (Doc. No. 10) is hereby GRANTED, and Defendant shall file its 
responsive pleading no later than January 10, 2025. 
 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default (Doc. No. 9) is 
hereby DENIED. 
                         Signed: December 30, 2024 

                         Graham C. Mullen              es 
                         United States District Judge       mt