Quiktech LLC v. H & R Block Enterprise LLC

-1-
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
QUIKTECH, LLC, 	§
§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
V. 	§ 	No. 3:24-cv-1672-S-BN
§
H&R BLOCK ENTERPRISES LLC, 	§
§
Defendant. 	§
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Roquemore Skierski PLLC has filed a Motion for Leave to File Response to
Attorney Fees Request. See Dkt. No. 74.
For the reasons explained below, the Court grants the Motion [Dkt. No. 74].
Background
On February 3, 2026 Defendant H&R Block Enterprises LLC filed two
applications for attorneys’ fees. See Dkt. Nos. 70 & 71.
The applications were pursuant to two orders from this Court authorizing H&R
Block to move for attorneys’ fees if the parties could not reach an agreement as to the
amount of expenses and fees to be awarded. See Dkt. Nos. 51 & 52.
The 	Court 	authorized 	H&R 	Block 	to 	obtain 	“reasonable 	expenses 	and
attorneys’ fees incurred in having its counsel prepare and file its Motion to Compel
Discovery Responses and Request for Sanctions [Dkt. No. 24].” Dkt. No. 51. And it
ordered “Plaintiff Quik Tech, LLC, Roquemore Skierski PLLC, and D. Shawn
Case 3:24-cv-01672-S-BN Document 80 Filed 03/11/26 Page 1 of 7 PageID <pageID>

-2-
Stevens, jointly and severally,” to pay those fees. Id.
And, in a separate order, the Court granted in part H&R Block’s Motion for
Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(A) for Failure to Comply with Court Order [Dkt.
No. 38]. See Dkt. No. 52. In doing so, the Court ordered that “Plaintiff Quik Tech,
LLC must reimburse [H&R Block] for its reasonable expenses and attorneys’ fees
incurred in having its attorneys draft and file its Motion for Sanctions ... [Dkt. No.
38] and reply [Dkt. No. 44] and exhibits or appendices in support.” Id. at 13.
In both orders, the Court ordered that H&R Block must file its applications by
February 3, 2026; that Quik Tech must file any response to each application by
February 17, 2026; and that H&R Block must file any reply by March 3, 2026.
H&R Block filed its applications, in compliance with both orders, on February
3. See Dkt. Nos. 70 & 71.
On February 27, 2026 – ten days after Quik Tech’s response deadline –
Roquemore Skierski filed this Motion for Leave to File Response to Attorney Fees
Request, seeking to untimely respond to H&R Block’s first fee application [Dkt. No.
70]. See Dkt. No. 74.
H&R Block responded, see Dkt. No. 75, and Roquemore Skierski replied, see
Dkt. No. 78.
Legal Standards and Analysis
Rule 6(b)(1)(B) requires a showing of “excusable neglect” to extend an expired
deadline.
And the determination as to excusable neglect
Case 3:24-cv-01672-S-BN Document 80 Filed 03/11/26 Page 2 of 7 PageID <pageID>

-3-
is at bottom an equitable one, taking account all of the relevant
circumstances surrounding the party’s omission. These include the
danger of prejudice, the length of the 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.
Stotter v. Univ. of Tex. at San Antonio, 508 F.3d 812, 820 (5th Cir. 2007) (cleaned up;
quoting Midwest Employers Cas. Co. v. Williams, 161 F.3d 877, 879 (5th Cir. 1998)
(quoting, in turn, Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S.
380, 395 (1993))).
“Excusable neglect is intended and has proven to be quite elastic in its
application.” Mattress Giant Corp. v. Motor Adver. & Design Inc., No. 3:07-cv-1728-
D, 2008 WL 898772, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2008) (citation omitted).
But “[i]nadvertence, ignorance of the rules, or mistakes construing the rules
do not usually constitute ‘excusable’ neglect.” N.L.R.B. v. Tri-Cnty. Elec. Coop., Inc.,
No. 21-60887, 2023 WL 5040960, at *2 (5th Cir. Aug. 8, 2023) (per curiam) (quoting
Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 392); see also L.A. Pub. Ins. Adjusters, Inc. v. Nelson, 17 F.4th
521, 525 (5th Cir. 2021) (“Our court has held that, in most cases, an attorney's simple
misunderstanding of the Federal Rules ‘weighs heavily against a finding of excusable
neglect.’” (quoting Williams, 161 F.3d at 880)).
And, although the decision to grant relief under Rule 6(b)(1)(B) turns on the
equities, where (1) such a motion is grounded solely on counsel's inadvertence, a
reason solely within the control of the movant, see Nelson, 17 F.4th at 525 (“[I]n
determining whether a party’s failure to meet a deadline was excusable, the proper
Case 3:24-cv-01672-S-BN Document 80 Filed 03/11/26 Page 3 of 7 PageID <pageID>

-4-
focus is upon whether the neglect of the party and their counsel was excusable.”
(cleaned up)), and (2) the length of the delay is multiple months, not a few days or
even a week or two, the Court cannot find that the neglect is legally excusable, cf.
Williams v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings, No. 3:21-cv-3176-D-BH, 2022 WL
3081765, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 2, 2022).
Here, Roquemore Skierski provides no explanation for its failure to respond to
H&R Block’s fee application by February 17, 2026, other than its contention that the
February 17, 2026 response deadline was imposed on Quik Tech, not Roquemore
Skierski.
But the Court’s order held Quik Tech, Roquemore Skierski, and D. Shawn
Stevens “jointly and severally” responsible for H&R Block’s fees incurred by its
Motion to Compel. See Dkt. No. 51.
And, so, the Court is not convinced that Roquemore Skierski’s belief that it had
no deadline to respond is excusable.
The 	Court 	is 	also 	unpersuaded 	that 	Roquemore 	Skierski’s 	motion 	is 	a
“protective filing,” Dkt. No. 78 at 2, rather than exactly what it is titled – a “motion
for leave to file [a] response,” Dkt. No. 74 at 1 (caps omitted).
And, so, Roquemore Skierski has not met its burden to show excusable neglect
in failing to meet the Court’s deadline.
But, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), “the trial court is free to
reconsider and reverse its decision for any reason it deems sufficient, even in the
absence of new evidence or an intervening change in or clarification of the substantive
Case 3:24-cv-01672-S-BN Document 80 Filed 03/11/26 Page 4 of 7 PageID <pageID>

-5-
law.” Austin v. Kroger Texas, L.P., 864 F.3d 326, 336 (5th Cir. 2017) (cleaned up; citing
F ED. R. CIV. P. 54(b)).
And, so, although Roquemore Skierski has not met its burden, the Court will
determine whether its request should be granted based on the equities.
First, Roquemore Skierski filed its Motion only ten days after its response
deadline, which weighs in favor of extending the response deadline. See Santander,
2022 WL 3081765, at *3.
Second, the Court has dismissed Quik Tech’s claims with prejudice and closed
this case. The case remains active for only the limited purpose of resolving the
pending motions for attorneys’ fees [Dkt. Nos. 70 & 71] and – possibly – the motion
for injunction [Dkt. No. 65]. See Dkt. No. 79. Any pretrial deadlines or trial dates are
no longer pending.
And, so, a minor extension on the fee application briefing will have little to no
impact on the judicial proceedings in this case or unduly prejudice H&R Block.
Third, the Court is not convinced that a ten-day delay shows bad faith.
And that Roquemore Skierski did not confer with H&R Block on its Motion, as
required by Local Civil Rule 7.1, is not a sufficient reason to deny the motion. See
Dkt. No. 75 at 5 (citing N.D. T EX . L. CIV. R. 7.1(a)).
H&R Block responded to Roquemore Skierski’s Motion just one business day
after it was filed, see Dkt. No. 75, and Roquemore Skierski has already replied, see
Dkt. No. 78. Denying the Motion without prejudice now for this procedural defect and
Case 3:24-cv-01672-S-BN Document 80 Filed 03/11/26 Page 5 of 7 PageID <pageID>

-6-
requiring Roquemore Skierski to refile its motion would restart briefing and cause
further delay in resolving the fee applications. Avoiding delay is the very basis on
which H&R Block bases its opposition. And, in the absence of unique circumstances,
the Court sees no reason to deny a motion with prejudice for a repairable procedural
defect.
And Roquemore Skierski and counsel for H&R Block have already conferred
about H&R Block’s requested attorneys’ fees, albeit not for this Motion. See Dkt. No.
74 at 2. And, so, another conference is unlikely to resolve the parties’ dispute over the
fees amount. See In re Subpoena Served on Affiliated Foods, Inc., No. 2:21-mc-3-Z,
2021 WL 4439796, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 28, 2021) (“Local rules are important, and a
court can deny a motion based on failure to comply with local rules. However, the
failure to file a certificate of conference presents no basis to deny the motion where,
as here, it is clear that the motion is opposed and that a conference would neither
have eliminated not narrowed the parties’ dispute.” (cleaned up)).
And, fourth, Roquemore Skierski’s proposed response purports to “address[ ]
substantial disputes regarding which time entries fall within the Court’s defined
compensable scope.” Dkt. No. 74 at 2. The Court prefers to rule on the fee application
with the benefit of a response that addresses alleged discrepancies in H&R Block’s
reported attorneys’ fees.
And, so, considering the relevant filings and circumstances, and pursuant to
its authority under Rule 54(b), the Court finds that Roquemore Skierski should be
permitted to respond to H&R Block’s fee application.
Case 3:24-cv-01672-S-BN Document 80 Filed 03/11/26 Page 6 of 7 PageID <pageID>

-7-
Conclusion
The Court GRANTS Roquemore Skierski PLLC’s Motion for Leave to File
Response to Attorney Fees Request [Dkt. No. 74].
Roquemore Skierski must file a response to Defendant H&R Block Enterprises
LLC’s Application for Attorneys’ Fees [Dkt. No. 70] by Wednesday, March 18, 2026.
H&R Block must file any reply by Wednesday, April 1, 2026.
This Order does not affect the deadlines in the Court’s order granting H&R
Block’s motion for sanctions and authorizing it to obtain fees from Plaintiff Quik Tech
LLC [Dkt. No. 52].
SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 11, 2026
_________________________________________
DAVID L. HORAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:24-cv-01672-S-BN Document 80 Filed 03/11/26 Page 7 of 7 PageID <pageID>