Jorque et al v. American Brokers Conduit et al

Filing 25

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 4/27/12. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Certificate of Service)(cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/27/2012)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

7
8

PORFIRIO P. JORQUE & EDITHA
PALANCIA,

No. C 12-00005 RS

9
Plaintiffs,

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

v.
11
12

AMERICAN BROKERS CONDUIT, et al.,

13
14

Defendants.
____________________________________/

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Following a hearing at which pro se plaintiffs failed to appear, defendants’ motion to dismiss
was granted with leave to amend. Plaintiffs were instructed to file an amended complaint on or
before April 12, 2012 or the case would be automatically dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiffs failed
to meet this filing deadline and judgment was entered in defendants’ favor. Pro se plaintiffs now
make a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 60(b).
They request that the Court reopen the case and permit them to file the first amended complaint
attached to their submitted motion.
Under FRCP 60(b), a court may grant relief from judgment if a movant demonstrates, among
other things: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered
evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new
trial; or (3) misconduct by the opposing party. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); Engleson v. Burlington
N.R. Co., 972 F.2d 1038, 1044 (9th Cir. 1994). Here, plaintiffs insist they were never served with
the Court order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss and directing them to file an amended
complaint by April 12, 2012. Accordingly, they argue that their failure to submit a timely amended
NO. C
ORDER

1

complaint constitutes excusable neglect and inadvertence. Plaintiffs have made a sufficient showing

2

to warrant relief from the Court’s dismissal. The judgment entered is hereby vacated and the case

3

will be reopened. Plaintiffs are directed to file their first amended complaint on or before May 4,

4

2012. They are cautioned, however, that from this point they will be strictly held to the same

5

standards and rules as those governing attorneys and represented parties. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46

6

F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995) (upholding decision to dismiss pro se complaint for failure to comply

7

with local rules).

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11

Dated: 4/27/12

12
13

RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

NO. C
ORDER

2