Darrin v. Bank of America, N.A.
Filing
107
ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 7/22/14. The Clerk is directed to reactivate this matter as an open file. Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint is deemed filed as of 6/3/14. Defendants shall file a responsive pleading to said Third Amended Complaint not later than twenty (20) days following the date this Order is electronically filed.(Mena-Sanchez, L)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
JUDE DARRIN, individually, and on
behalf of the general public,
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
16
17
v.
No. 2:12-cv-00228-MCE-KJN
ORDER
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., EXPERIAN
INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.,
EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES
LLC., & TRANS UNION LLC.,
Defendants.
18
19
Plaintiff Jude Darrin (“Plaintiff”) moves to set aside the June 17, 2014 Order
20
entering judgment against him and in favor of Defendants Trans Union, LLC, Experian
21
Information Solutions, Inc., and Equifax Information Services, LLC (“collectively
22
“Defendants”) on various grounds, including mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect
23
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b). Because this Court finds that Plaintiff
24
is indeed entitled to relief based on a Rule 60(b) excusable argument alone, it will not
25
address Plaintiff’s remaining arguments.
26
On May 13, 2014, this Court signed a Memorandum and Order granting Plaintiff
27
leave to file an amended complaint “within 20 days from the date of the date of [the]
28
Memorandum and Order.” ECF No. 95, 14:25-15:2. The Order was docketed and filed
1
1
the following day, May 14, 2014. Plaintiff thereafter filed his Third Amended Complaint
2
on June 3, 2014, exactly 20 days after the aforementioned Memorandum and Order was
3
filed but 21 days after it was signed.
4
On June 13, 2014, defense counsel submitted an administrative request that the
5
action be dismisssed because the Third Amended Complaint should have been filed
6
within 20 days following the date the Memorandum and Order was signed, or by June 2,
7
2014, one day before the Third Amended Complaint was in fact submitted. On June 16,
8
2014, by way of Minute Order, this court dismissed the action on grounds the Third
9
Amended Complaint was untimely filed (ECF No. 99). Judgment was entered
10
accordingly the following day, June 17, 2014, and, as indicated above, Plaintiff now
11
seeks to set aside that judgment.
12
According to Plaintiff’s counsel, Linda D. Deos, she in good faith believed that the
13
“date of the Order” language contained in the Court’s Memorandum and Order filed
14
May 14, 2014 referred to the filed date rather than the date of signature. In addition,
15
Plaintiff’s counsel points to Ninth Circuit authority finding that the date of entry, rather
16
than the date an order is signed, is normally the critical date within which to assess
17
timeliness. See, e.g., Calhoun v. United States, 647 F.2d 6, 8 (9th Cir. 1981). The
18
bottom line is that it was not patently unreasonable for Plaintiff’s counsel to construe the
19
Memorandum and Order in the way she did.
20
In assessing whether excusable neglect is present, the United States Supreme
21
Court recognizes that “the determination is at bottom an equitable one, taking account of
22
all relevant circumstances surrounding the party’s omission,” including the danger of
23
prejudice to the [nonmoving party], the length of the delay and its potential impact on
24
judicial proceedings, the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the
25
reasonable control of the movant, and whether the movant acted in good faith.” Pioneer
26
Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993).
27
These so-called Pioneer factors weigh in favor of finding excusable neglect under
28
the circumstances confronted herein. Given the fact that the delay in filing the Complaint
2
1
was only some 18 hours, any claim of prejudice here is far-fetched. Moreover, as
2
indicated above, Plaintiff counsel’s interpretation of the Court’s deadline was not per se
3
unreasonable. Nor is there any evidence of bad faith. Consequently, the Court finds
4
that Plaintiff’s excusable neglect argument is well-taken, and that the judgment against
5
Plaintiff should therefore be set aside.
6
Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Judgment (ECF No. 101) is therefore GRANTED.1
7
Plaintiff is nonetheless admonished to scrupulously adhere to this Court’s orders in the
8
future as the case progresses, and to err on the side of caution should any question
9
arise with respect to deadlines or any other requirement imposed by the Court during the
10
11
continued pendency of this litigation.
The Clerk of Court is directed to reactivate this matter as an open file. Plaintiff’s
12
Third Amended Complaint is deemed filed as of June 3, 2014. Defendants shall file a
13
responsive pleading to said Third Amended Complaint not later than twenty (20) days
14
following the date this Order is electronically filed.
15
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 22, 2014
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1
28
Because oral argument was not of material assistance, the Court ordered this matter submitted
on the briefing. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 230(g).
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?