Lemberg v. JPMorgan Chase Bank
Filing
19
ORDER REOPENING ACTION AND ADDRESSING PLAINTIFF'S FILINGS. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 1/11/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/12/2018) Modified on 1/12/2018 (ahm, COURT STAFF).
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
ANN LEMBERG,
Plaintiff,
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Case No.17-cv-05241-JSC
ORDER REOPENING ACTION AND
ADDRESSING PLAINTIFF’S FILINGS
v.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
Re: Dkt. Nos. 15, 16, 17
Defendant.
12
13
Plaintiff filed this personal injury action against Defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.,
14
in the Superior Court for the County of San Francisco and it was later removed to this Court based
15
on diversity jurisdiction. After Plaintiff failed to respond to a motion to dismiss and the Court’s
16
orders, the action was dismissed for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
17
41(b). Plaintiff has since submitted a variety of filings, one of which the Court construes as a
18
motion to reopen under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1). (Dkt. Nos. 15, 16, 17.) Because
19
Defendant does not oppose the motion and Plaintiff has demonstrated excusable neglect, the
20
motion is GRANTED.
21
22
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed this personal injury action against Defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.,
23
in the Superior Court for the County of San Francisco on June 19, 2017. (Dtk. No. 1-1.) Defendant
24
thereafter removed the action to this Court based on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
25
(Dkt. No. 1.) Defendant then moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim under
26
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Dkt. No. 7.) Plaintiff failed to respond to the motion to
27
dismiss and the Court issued an order to show cause as to why the action should not be dismissed
28
for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). (Dkt. No. 12.) Plaintiff
1
failed to respond to the order to show cause or otherwise communicate with the Court and the
2
action was dismissed on November 8, 2017. (Dkt. No. 14.)
3
On December 22, 2017, Plaintiff filed a document entitled “Oversight of Clerical Error”
4
wherein she contends that she never received notice of the motion to dismiss or other filings and
5
seeks to have her case reinstated. (Dkt. No. 17.) Plaintiff also seeks to withdraw her previously
6
filed consent to having this matter heard by the undersigned magistrate judge. (Dkt. Nos. 13, 16,
7
17.) On January 3, 2018, Plaintiff filed a “motion to strike last document to the court, in error, and
8
vacate dismissal.” (Dkt. No. 15.) Plaintiff again states that she did not receive notice of the
9
motion and that Defendant has been operating in bad faith as she was in settlement discussions
with them at the time the motion was filed and they never mentioned it to her or that her case was
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
going to be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (Dkt. No. 15-1.) On January 9, 2018, Defendant
12
filed a statement of non-opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to strike the dismissal. (Dkt. No. 18.)
13
DISCUSSION
14
Rule 60(b)(1) provides for reconsideration upon a showing of mistake, inadvertence,
15
surprise, or excusable neglect. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). In Briones v. Riviera Hotel &
16
Casino, 116 F.3d 379 (9th Cir. 1997), the Ninth Circuit set out factors which a court should weigh
17
to determine whether missing a filing deadline constitutes “excusable neglect.” These include “the
18
danger of prejudice [to the opposing party], the length of the delay and its potential impact on
19
judicial proceedings, the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable
20
control of the movant, and whether the movant acted in good faith.” Id. at 381. The Briones court
21
ultimately held that a pro se plaintiff’s failure to timely respond to a motion to dismiss did not
22
necessarily foreclose finding that his neglect was excusable and that judgment against him should
23
be set aside. Id. at 382.
24
There is no “rigid legal rule against late filings attributable to any particular type of
25
negligence.” Mendez v. Knowles, 556 F.3d 757, 767 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal citations and
26
quotations omitted). Rather, the district court is required to weigh the Briones equitable factors on
27
a case-by-case basis. See id. In Mendez, a mailed notice of appeal arrived to the district court late,
28
but the court found the delay excusable, finding that counsel may still seek relief even when they
2
1
2
decide to “rely on the vagaries of the mail.” Id.
Here, Plaintiff has provided a declaration stating that she did not receive the motion to
3
dismiss and was unaware of the Court’s order. (Dkt. No. 15-1.) It also appears from Plaintiff’s
4
motion that she is now residing at a different address than where the motion to dismiss and the
5
Court’s October 12, 2017 Order were sent. Further, Defendant has filed a statement of non-
6
opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to reopen. The Court thus concludes that Plaintiff has
7
demonstrated excusable neglect under Rule 60(b)(1). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to reopen
8
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) is granted.
9
The Court construes Plaintiff’s motion to strike as seeking to strike her withdrawal of
consent to having this case assigned to the undersigned magistrate judge and her request for
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
reassignment. Even if this were not the case, the Court would deny the motion to withdraw
12
consent as Plaintiff previously consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge.
13
(Dkt. No. 13.) Consent to magistrate-judge jurisdiction can only be withdrawn for good cause or
14
under extraordinary circumstances. Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir. 1993). Indeed,
15
“[t]here is no absolute right, in a civil case, to withdraw consent to trial and other proceedings
16
before a magistrate judge.” Id. Here, Plaintiff has not shown good cause or extraordinary
17
circumstances warranting the withdrawal of her consent.
CONCLUSION
18
19
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s motion to reopen pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1) is
20
GRANTED. The Clerk shall reopen this action. Plaintiff shall file her opposition to the motion
21
to dismiss or an amended complaint on or before February 2, 2018. If Plaintiff fails to do so,
22
the action will again be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute.
23
As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court directs her attention to the Handbook for Pro Se
24
Litigants, which is available along with further information for the parties on the Court’s website
25
located at http://cand.uscourts.gov/proselitigants. Plaintiff may also contact the Legal Help
26
Center, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 15th Floor, Room 2796, Telephone No. (415)-782-8982, for
27
free assistance regarding her claims.
28
Finally, Plaintiff is warned of her continuing duty to notify the Court of her address
3
1
changes. See N.D. Cal. Civ. R. 3-11. The Clerk shall mail this Order both to the address on file:
2
845 Pine Street, San Francisco, California 94108, and to the address reflected on her most recent
3
filing: 601 Van Ness Ave. E744. San Francisco, California 94102. Plaintiff shall notify the
4
Court within five days of her current address.
5
6
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 11, 2018
8
9
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?