Lewallen v. Home Depot USA Incorporated
Filing
52
ORDER, that Plaintiff's 45 Motion to Vacate Judgment is granted. That the August 3, 2012 Minute Order (Doc. 42) terminating this case is vacated. That Defendant's 43 Bill of Costs and 44 Motion for Attorneys' Fees are denied without prejudice as premature. That Defendant file a response to the Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 51) by October 1, 2012. Signed by Judge Neil V Wake on 9/11/12.(DMT)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
9
10
Yvonne Lewallen,
11
No. CV 11-01639-PHX-NVW
Plaintiff,
12
vs.
13
ORDER
Home Depot USA, Inc.,
14
Defendant.
15
16
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Judgment (Doc. 45). On August
17
27, 2012, Defendant filed a response in opposition (Doc. 48). Plaintiff did not file a reply
18
in support of her motion to vacate judgment.
19
I.
BACKGROUND
20
On July 23, 2012, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint with
21
leave to file a Second Amended Complaint by July 30, 2012. Plaintiff did not file a
22
Second Amended Complaint by July 30, 2012. On August 3, 2012, no Second Amended
23
Complaint having been filed, the Clerk of the Court terminated this case. On August 16,
24
2012, Plaintiff moved to vacate the judgment under “Rules 55(c) and 60(c) of the Federal
25
and Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure.” On August 20, 2012, the Court ordered Plaintiff
26
to supplement her motion by August 29, 2012, by filing any further proposed complaint.
27
On August 30, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint, and on August 31,
28
1
2
3
4
2012, she filed a red-lined version of her Amended Complaint as required by LRCiv 15.1
and ordered by the Court. (Docs. 49, 51.)
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
5
Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c) permits the Court to set aside an entry of default for good
6
cause and a default judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). It does not apply here. Neither
7
do the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure.
8
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c) sets time limits for filing a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P.
9
60(b) and provides that the filing of such a motion does not affect the judgment’s finality
10
or suspend its operation. It also does not provide a basis for vacating the termination of
11
this case.
12
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) provides the grounds upon which the Court may relieve a
13
party from a final judgment, order, or proceeding. These include mistake, inadvertence,
14
surprise, or excusable neglect. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). Whether to grant relief for
15
excusable neglect is an equitable determination, considering all circumstances relevant to
16
the party’s omission. Brandt v. Am. Bankers Ins. Co., 653 F.3d 1108, 1111 (9th Cir.
17
2011).
18
III.
ANALYSIS
19
Plaintiff contends that her failure to file a Second Amended Complaint by July 30,
20
2012, amounts to inadvertence or excusable neglect because her counsel was out of town
21
when the July 23, 2012 Order was filed and had difficulty accessing emails and internet.
22
Plaintiff’s motion does not state when her counsel became aware of the July 23, 2012
23
Order, what arrangements she had made to fulfill her responsibilities to her clients while
24
she was out of town and without email and internet access, or why she did not move for
25
an extension of time to file a Second Amended Complaint immediately upon her return to
26
Phoenix. The motion states only that upon her return to Phoenix, counsel attended a
27
week-long Arizona State Bar program and is a solo practitioner with very limited staff.
28
-2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Counsel’s avowals show neglect, but not excusable neglect.
demonstrate lack of concern for complying with Court orders and protecting her client’s
interests.
However, the Court usually provides parties with two weeks, rather than one
week, to file an amended pleading. Finding this to be inadvertence on the part of the
Court, relief under Rule 60(b) will be granted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Judgment (Doc.
45) is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the August 3, 2012 Minute Order (Doc. 42)
terminating this case is vacated.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Bill of Costs (Doc. 43) and Motion
for Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. 44) are denied without prejudice as premature.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant file a response to the Second
Amended Complaint (Doc. 51) by October 1, 2012.
Dated this 11th day of September, 2012.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Moreover, her actions
-3
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.
Why Is My Information Online?