Langley v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
26
Order by Judge Lucy H. Koh Granting 24 Motion to Vacate.(lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/8/2019)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SAN JOSE DIVISION
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
JESSICA ROSE LANGLEY,
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
15
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
16
Case No. 17-CV-04583-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
VACATE THE JUDGMENT AND
REOPEN THE CASE
Re: Dkt. No. 24
Defendant.
17
18
Before the Court is a motion to vacate the judgment and reopen the case filed by Plaintiff
19
Jessica Rose Langley (“Plaintiff”). ECF No. 24 (“Mot.”). Defendant Commissioner of Social
20
Security (“Defendant”) has not opposed or otherwise responded to Plaintiff’s motion. Having
21
considered Plaintiff’s submission, the relevant law, and the record in this case, the Court
22
GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion.
23
I.
24
BACKGROUND
On August 10, 2017, Plaintiff, who is represented by counsel, filed a complaint against
25
Defendant. ECF No. 1. On August 22, 2017, Defendant consented to proceed before Magistrate
26
Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte. ECF No. 9. On November 16, 2017, Defendant filed an answer and
27
lodged the administrative record. ECF Nos. 12 & 13.
1
28
Case No. 17-CV-04583-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT AND REOPEN THE CASE
1
On November 21, 2017, the Clerk ordered Plaintiff to file Plaintiff’s consent or declination
2
to proceed before a magistrate judge by December 5, 2017. ECF No. 14. On December 8, 2017,
3
Plaintiff submitted a blank consent/declination form. ECF No. 15. Then, on May 11, 2018, the
4
Clerk again ordered Plaintiff to file Plaintiff’s consent or declination to proceed before a
5
magistrate judge by May 25, 2018. ECF No. 17. Plaintiff did not respond. Finally, on August 24,
6
2018, the Clerk ordered Plaintiff to file Plaintiff’s consent or declination to proceed before a
7
magistrate judge by September 7, 2018. ECF No. 18. Plaintiff again did not respond. Nor did
8
Plaintiff file a motion for summary judgment or for remand within 28 days of service of
9
Defendant’s November 16, 2017 answer, as required by Civil Local Rule 16-5.
10
On September 13, 2018, Magistrate Judge Laporte ordered Plaintiff “to show cause in
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
writing by September 20, 2018 why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.”
12
ECF No. 19. After Plaintiff failed to respond to the order to show cause, Magistrate Judge Laporte
13
issued a Report and Recommendation to dismiss the case on September 24, 2018. ECF No. 20
14
(“September 24, 2018 Report and Recommendation”). On September 24, 2018, after Magistrate
15
Judge Laporte issued her Report and Recommendation, the case was reassigned to the
16
undersigned. See ECF No. 21.
17
On September 25, 2018, this Court issued an Order vacating the September 24, 2018
18
Report and Recommendation and dismissing the case with prejudice for failure to prosecute. ECF
19
No. 22. In the Court’s order, the Court weighed the five factors for dismissing a matter for failure
20
to prosecute: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to
21
manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring
22
disposition of cases on their merits and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. See Henderson
23
v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986).
24
The Court found that the first two factors weighed strongly in favor of dismissal “[g]iven
25
Plaintiff’s failure to comply with three separate orders to consent or decline magistrate judge
26
jurisdiction, failure to file a summary judgment motion, and failure to comply with Magistrate
27
Judge Laporte’s order to show cause.” ECF No. 22 at 2. The Court also found that the third factor
28
2
Case No. 17-CV-04583-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT AND REOPEN THE CASE
1
weighed in favor of dismissal. See id. at 2–3. The Court stated: “Plaintiff filed this case over a year
2
ago on August 10, 2017, and has effectively not engaged in any litigation over the last year.
3
Plaintiff’s delay also creates a presumption of injury [to the Defendant].” Id. As for the fifth
4
factor, the Court emphasized that “warning a [party] that failure to obey a court order will result in
5
dismissal can suffice to meet the ‘consideration of alternatives’ requirement.” Id. at 3 (quoting
6
Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 132 (9th Cir. 1987)). The Court found that Plaintiff had
7
been sufficiently warned and had failed to comply with multiple court orders, including Magistrate
8
Judge Laporte’s order to show cause. Id.
Accordingly, having weighed the factors, the Court dismissed with prejudice the case for
9
failure to prosecute. Id. On September 25, 2018, the Court entered judgment in favor of Defendant
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
and directed the Clerk to close the file. ECF No. 23. The case file was closed that same day.
On October 9, 2018, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to vacate the judgment and reopen
12
13
the case. See Mot. In support of her motion, Plaintiff attached a declaration from counsel and a
14
proposed motion for summary judgment. See id.
15
II.
16
DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c) provides that “[t]he court may set aside an entry of
17
default for good cause, and it may set aside a final default judgment under Rule 60(b).” Fed. R.
18
Civ. P. 55(c). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), a Court may grant a party relief
19
from an order or judgment where one or more of the following is shown: (1) mistake,
20
inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that by due diligence
21
could not have been discovered before the Court’s decision; (3) fraud by the adverse party; (4)
22
voiding of the judgment; (5) satisfaction of the judgment; (6) any other reason justifying relief.
23
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); School Dist. 1J v. ACandS Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).
24
Whether to grant a party relief pursuant to Rule 60(b) is within the district court’s discretion.
25
Towery v. Ryan, 673 F.3d 933, 940 (9th Cir. 2012).
26
Here, Plaintiff seeks relief from the Court’s September 25, 2018 Judgment and order
27
vacating the September 24, 2018 Report and Recommendation and dismissing the case with
28
3
Case No. 17-CV-04583-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT AND REOPEN THE CASE
1
prejudice for failure to prosecute. Mot. at 2–3; see ECF Nos. 22 & 23. In particular, Plaintiff
2
argues that after Magistrate Judge Laporte issued her September 24, 2018 Report and
3
Recommendation, Plaintiff was entitled to the opportunity to “serve and file specific written
4
objections to [the] recommendation within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy.” See
5
id. (quoting September 24, 2018 Report and Recommendation). According to Plaintiff, the
6
fourteen-day deadline to file an objection to the September 24, 2018 Report and Recommendation
7
was October 8, 2018. Mot. at 3. Plaintiff represents that “Plaintiff had no intention of not filing an
8
objection; however, was not afforded an opportunity to do so” because the undersigned issued its
9
order vacating the September 24, 2018 Report and Recommendation and dismissing the case with
10
prejudice for failure to prosecute on September 25, 2018. Id.
None of the first five Rule 60(b) bases to grant relief from the order apply in the instant
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
case. Specifically, there was no (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly
13
discovered evidence that by due diligence could not have been discovered before the Court’s
14
decision; (3) fraud by the adverse party; (4) voiding of the judgment; or (5) satisfaction of the
15
judgment. Nonetheless, Plaintiff, who has always been represented by counsel, now appears to be
16
willing to litigate the case. The Court believes that allowing Plaintiff to now litigate her case
17
would be in the interest of justice and GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the judgment and
18
reopen the case.
19
III.
20
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the judgment
21
and reopen the case. The Clerk shall reopen the file. The Court sets aside the Judgment. See ECF
22
No. 23. Plaintiff shall file her motion for summary judgment by Friday, January 11, 2019. Failure
23
to file a motion for summary judgment by January 11, 2019 will result in a dismissal of this case
24
with prejudice for failure to prosecute.
25
26
IT IS SO ORDERED.
27
28
4
Case No. 17-CV-04583-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT AND REOPEN THE CASE
1
2
3
Dated: January 8, 2019
______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge
4
5
6
7
8
9
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
5
Case No. 17-CV-04583-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT AND REOPEN THE CASE
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?