Sonnik v. Allstate Insurance Company et al
Filing
11
ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 12/18/2018 GRANTING 10 Motion to Set Aside 8 Order and 9 Judgment as to the Court's dismissal of the case against Defendant Allstate Insurance Company. As previously ordered in the 5 findings and recommendations, and this prior Court's 8 adoption of those findings, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: All named individual defendants other than Allstate be DISMISSED from this action; The 4 First Amended Complai nt shall proceed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1981 and the supplemental state claim jurisdiction against Defendant Allstate Insurance Company only; the 42 U.S.C. section 2000e (6th Cause of Action) and section 1983 (4th Cause of Action) claims be finally DISMISSED as to all defendants; Service on Allstate Insurance Company is deemed to be appropriate; The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to issue forthwith all process; Within 14 days from the date this order is filed, Plaintiff shall submit to the USM the necessary documents and file a statement with the court; The USM shall serve process without prepayment of costs within 90 days; In the event the USM is unable, for any reason whatsoever, to effectuate service on any defendant wi thin 90 days from the date of this order, the Marshal is DIRECTED to report that fact, and the reasons for it, to the undersigned. Plaintiff's failure to comply with these orders may result in dismissal of this case with prejudice. CASE REOPENED. (cc: USM) (York, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
RUVIM SONNIK,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
No. 2:18-cv-00366-TLN-GGH
v.
ORDER
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, et
al.,
Defendants.
16
Plaintiff Ruvim Sonnik’s (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, brings this current motion to set
17
18
aside the dismissal of his case entered on August 29, 2018. (Mot. Set Aside, ECF No. 10; Order
19
of Dismissal, ECF No. 8.) Defendant Allstate Insurance Company has not filed an opposition to
20
Plaintiff’s motion. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Aside Judgement is
21
hereby GRANTED.
22
///
23
///
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
1
1
I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
2
On April 20, 2018 the magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations
3
recommending that all Defendants except Allstate Insurance Company be dismissed from the
4
action. (ECF No. 5 at 4.) The Findings and Recommendations further stated that the First
5
Amended Complaint filed on March 27, 2018 could only proceed under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and
6
any related state claims pleaded pursuant to the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction. (ECF No. 5 at
7
4–5.) The magistrate judge ordered Plaintiff to provide all necessary documents to the U.S.
8
Marshall to effect service within fourteen days from the date of the Order and to file a statement
9
with the Court attesting that those documents had been submitted as ordered. (ECF No. 5 at 5.)
10
Plaintiff was warned that failure to comply with the Court request could result in a
11
recommendation that the action be dismissed by this Court. (ECF No. 5 at 6.) Plaintiff took no
12
action and did not file any objections, nor did he comply with the Court’s direction to provide the
13
U.S. Marshal with service documents. Accordingly, on August 29, 2018 this Court adopted the
14
magistrate judge’s Findings and Recommendations and ordered that case be closed. (ECF No. 8
15
at 2.)
16
Plaintiff claims he did not respond to or comply with the Court’s order because he was out
17
of the country at the time the Court issued the order. (ECF No. 10 at ¶ ¶ 12–13.) Plaintiff claims
18
he was visiting family living in a war-torn area of Ukraine, which Plaintiff points out is in an
19
active conflict with Russia. (ECF No. 10 at ¶¶ 7–8.) Plaintiff claims that because of his absence
20
he was inadvertently unaware of the Court’s order, and as a result failed to comply within the
21
Court’s stated timeline. (ECF No. 10 at ¶ 12.) Plaintiff requests the Court grant his motion to set
22
aside the Order based on “mistake, surprise, inadvertence or excusable neglect” under Federal
23
Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1). (ECF No. 10 at 1.)
24
25
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
Under Rule 60(b)(1), the Court may grant reconsideration of a final judgment or any order
26
based on mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. A motion for reconsideration on
27
any of these grounds must be brought within a reasonable time and no later than one year of entry
28
of judgment or the order being challenged. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1).
2
1
2
Courts analyzing whether to grant reconsideration on the basis of excusable neglect
employ an “equitable analysis” which includes the following factors:
3
4
(1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length of
the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings; (3) the
reason for the delay; and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith.”
5
Bateman v. U.S. Postal Serv., 231 F.3d 1220, 1223–24 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Pioneer Inv. Servs.
6
Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 394–95 (1993)).
7
A district court abuses its discretion when it fails to apply the four-factor Pioneer
8
equitable balancing test to cases in which the test is appropriate. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures,
9
Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1261–62 (9th Cir. 2010). Further, courts balancing the Pioneer factors may
10
not apply a per se rule as per se rules are inconsistent with Supreme Court authority in Pioneer on
11
the issue of excusable neglect. Id. (citing Pincay v. Andrews, 389 F.3d 853, 855 (9th Cir. 2004)).
12
13
III.
ANALYSIS
In deciding whether Plaintiff has shown excusable neglect the Court must consider the
14
following factors: “(1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length of the delay
15
and its potential impact on the proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the
16
movant acted in good faith.” Bateman, 231 F.3d at 1223–24 (citing Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co., 507
17
U.S. at 395). Courts have interpreted “excusable neglect” as encompassing errors made due to
18
“mere neglect” of the petitioner. Cmty. Dental Servs. v. Tani, 282 F.3d 1164, 1170 n.11 (9th
19
Cir.2002) (citing Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 394). “The good faith consideration goes to the absence of
20
tactical or strategic motives, not to the degree of negligence.” Pincay, 389 F.3d at 861 (Berzon,
21
J., concurring). The Court addresses each factor in turn.
22
A. Prejudice
23
The first Pioneer factor looks at whether the opposing party will be unduly prejudiced
24
should the Court determine the neglect to have been excusable. Bateman, 231 F.3d at 1223.
25
“‘Prejudice requires greater harm than simply that relief would delay resolution of the case’ or
26
would force the nonmoving party to litigate the case on the merits.” Chow v. Berryhill, No. 17-
27
CV-04997-LHK, 2018 WL 1335995, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2018) (quoting Lemoge v. United
28
States, 587 F.3d 1188, 1196 (9th Cir. 2009)).
3
1
This case was dismissed on August 29, 2018, (ECF No. 8 at 2) and Plaintiff filed his
2
motion to set aside the judgment on September 26, 2018 (ECF No. 10). The potential for
3
prejudice to Defendant here is minimal. While there maybe be an increased cost of continuing to
4
defend the lawsuit, the most apparent potential harm is a five-month delay in the resolution of the
5
case, which on its own is insufficient to deny Plaintiff’s motion. See Lemoge, 587 F.3d at 1196.
6
B. Length of Delay and its Impact on the Proceedings
7
Motions under Rule 60(b)(1) must be made “within a reasonable time” and “no more than
8
a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.” Rule 60(c)(1).
9
“What constitutes ‘reasonable time’ depends upon the facts of each case, taking into
10
consideration the interest in finality, the reason for delay, the practical ability of the litigant to
11
learn earlier of the grounds relied upon, and prejudice to the other parties.” Lemoge, 587 F.3d
12
1188, 1196–97 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Ashford v. Steuart, 657 F.2d 1053, 1055 (9th Cir. 1981).
13
The Court notes the length of delay is not merely the delay between this Court’s judgment
14
on August 29, 2018 (ECF No. 9) and Plaintiff’s motion on September 26, 2018 (ECF No. 10), but
15
rather, from the magistrate judge’s initial order on April 20, 2018, (ECF No. 5) to the present
16
motion. See e.g., Souliotes v. City of Modesto, No. 115CV00556LJOSKO, 2017 WL 1273824, at
17
*3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2017), aff’d, 714 F. App’x 734 (9th Cir. 2018) (finding the length of delay
18
was the time that elapsed after the plaintiff failed to file an opposition to a motion rather than
19
after the entry of judgment).
20
Plaintiff brought the motion within a year of the Order. While five months is longer than
21
many instances where courts have found the delay to be reasonable, see e.g., Augusta Fiberglass
22
Coatings, Inc., 843 F.2d 808, 812 (9th Cir. 1988) (finding that the party’s two-week delay
23
between entry of a default judgement and the filing of a Rule 60 motion did not justify denying
24
relief); Bateman, 231 F.3d at 1225 (finding a one-month delay in filing his Rule 60(b) was
25
“minimal”), Plaintiff’s motion was still within the one-year timeframe. Further taking into
26
consideration the facts of the case, the finality for Plaintiff if denied, the reason for delay, and
27
Plaintiff’s ability to learn of the delay sooner, the Court finds this factor to be in Plaintiff’s favor.
28
///
4
1
C. Reason for Delay and Good Faith
2
The third and fourth prongs require the Court to examine the reason for delay, and
3
whether the party was acting in good faith. Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co., 507 U.S. at 394–95. Given
4
that the analysis turns on equitable principles, the Court may grant relief if the conduct resulted
5
from negligence or carelessness as opposed to willfulness. Bateman, 231 F.3d at 1225.
6
Here, Plaintiff claims that he missed the Court’s deadline because he was out of the
7
country visiting family, which is not a particularly strong reason for delay. See Batemen, 231
8
F.3d at 1225 (finding that Plaintiff’s counsel leaving the country showed a lack of regard for the
9
court’s docket and was a “weak” reason for delay.) Despite a “weak” reason for the five-month
10
delay, Plaintiff has not missed any additional deadlines imposed by the Court. Therefore, the
11
missed deadline seems to be a true case of negligence or carelessness as opposed to willful or
12
devious bad faith. See Serrano v. United States, No. CR-F-02-05319-LJO, 2011 WL 5873387, at
13
*5 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2011) (finding that even Plaintiff’s repeated failures to comply with Court
14
deadlines did not rise to the level of bad faith).
15
After weighing all four factors the Court finds that the equitable analysis falls in favor of
16
allowing Plaintiff Rule 60(b)(1) relief. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to set
17
aside the dismissal.
18
19
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that Plaintiff made a showing of excusable
20
neglect. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to set aside judgment is hereby GRANTED as to the
21
Court’s dismissal of the case against Defendant Allstate Insurance Company.
22
23
As previously ordered in the findings and recommendations, (ECF No. 5) and this prior
Court’s adoption of those findings, (ECF No. 8) it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
24
1.
All named individual defendants other than Allstate be dismissed from this action;
25
2. The First Amended Complaint shall proceed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1981 and
26
the supplemental state claim jurisdiction against Defendant Allstate Insurance
27
Company only; the 42 U.S.C. section 2000e (6th Cause of Action) and section 1983
28
(4th Cause of Action) claims be finally dismissed as to all defendants;
5
1
3. Service on Allstate Insurance Company is deemed to be appropriate;
2
4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to issue forthwith, and the U.S. Marshal is directed
3
to serve within ninety days of the date of this order, all process pursuant to Fed. R.
4
Civ. P. 4, including a copy of the magistrate court’s status order, without prepayment
5
of costs;
6
5. The Clerk of the Court shall send Plaintiff one USM-285 form for the named
7
defendant, one summons, a copy of the complaint, an appropriate form for consent to
8
trial by a magistrate judge, and the magistrate court’s status order;
9
6. Plaintiff is directed to supply the U.S. Marshal, within 14 days from the date this
10
order is filed, all information needed by the Marshal to effect service of process, and
11
shall file a statement with the Court that said documents have been submitted to the
12
United States Marshal. The Court anticipates that, to effect service, the U.S. Marshal
13
will require at least:
14
a. One completed summons for Defendant;
15
b. One completed USM-285 form for Defendant;
16
c. One copy of the endorsed filed complaint for Defendant, with an extra copy for
17
the U.S. Marshal;
18
d. One copy of this court’s status order for Defendant; and
19
e. One copy of the instant order for Defendant.
20
7. In the event the U.S. Marshal is unable, for any reason whatsoever, to effectuate
21
service on any defendant within 90 days from the date of this order, the Marshal is
22
directed to report that fact, and the reasons for it, to the undersigned.
23
8. If the Defendant waives service, he is required to return the signed waiver to the
24
United States Marshal. If the Marshal has already attempted personal service, the
25
filing of an answer or a responsive motion will not relieve a defendant from the
26
potential obligation to pay the costs of service pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
27
Procedure 4(d)(2).
28
6
1
2
3
9. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the U.S. Marshal,
501 “I” Street, Sacramento, CA 95814, Tel. No. (916) 930-2030.
Further, it is ORDERED that:
4
10. The Clerk of the Court is directed to reopen this case.
5
11. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with these orders may result in dismissal of this case with
6
prejudice.
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
8
Dated: December 18, 2018
9
10
11
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
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?