Chun v. Nakashima
Filing
27
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REOPEN CASE re 26 - Signed by JUDGE DERRICK K. WATSON on 8/27/2018. Based upon the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Chun's Motion to Reopen, Dkt. No. 26, and sets aside the judgment entered o n August 20, 2018. Dkt. No. 24. The Clerk of Court is directed to reopen this action. Chun is permitted leave to file an amended complaint that complies with the requirements of this Court's 6/13/18 Order by no later than September 4, 2018. Failure to file an amended complaint by this deadline will result in the automatic dismissal of this action. (emt, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI‘I
CURTIS P. CHUN,
CV. NO. 18-00177 DKW-KSC
Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
REOPEN
v.
HAWAII STATE FAMILY COURT
RULES UNDER THE HONORABLE
JUDGE STEVEN M. NAKASHIMA,
Defendant.
INTRODUCTION
On August 20, 2018, the Court dismissed this action without prejudice and
entered judgment in light of Chun’s failure to file an amended complaint by the
August 13, 2018 deadline. Dkt. Nos. 23 (8/20/18 Order) and 24 (Judgment). On
August 21, 2018, Chun filed a Motion to Reopen, which seeks to reopen the case and
extend once more the time to file an amended complaint. 1 Dkt. No. 26. Because
1
Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(d), the Court finds the matter suitable for disposition without a
hearing. Because Chun is appearing pro se, the Court liberally construes his filings. See
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir.
1987) (“The Supreme Court has instructed the federal courts to liberally construe the ‘inartful
pleading’ of pro se litigants.”) (citing Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (per
curiam)).
the balance of relevant factors weighs in favor of finding excusable neglect on
Chun’s part, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Reopen this action.
DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) provides that “[o]n motion and just
terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment,
order, or proceeding for ... mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.”
To determine whether failure to meet a deadline is excusable neglect, courts take
into account all relevant circumstances, examining “(1) the danger of prejudice to
the opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on the
proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the movant acted in good
faith.” Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1261 (9th Cir. 2010); see
also Lemoge v. United States, 587 F.3d 1188, 1195 (9th Cir. 2009) (stating that the
four enumerated factors, derived from Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs.,
507 U.S. 380, 394 (1993), are “‘not an exclusive list’”) (quoting Briones v. Riviera
Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d 379, 381 (9th Cir. 1997) (per curiam)). The Court may
also consider the prejudice to the moving party if the motion is denied. Lemoge,
587 F.3d at 1192. Following the liberal standard set by the Ninth Circuit, the Court
concludes that Chun has demonstrated excusable neglect. The Court therefore
GRANTS the Motion to Reopen and allows Chun a reasonable extension of time to
file an amended complaint.
2
In a June 13, 2018 Order, the Court granted Chun’s Application to proceed in
forma pauperis and dismissed his First Amended Complaint with limited leave to
amend. Dkt. No. 12 (6/13/18 Order). On July 12 and again on July 26, 2018, the
Court granted Chun’s requests for extensions of time, Dkt. Nos. 16 and 20, and twice
extended the deadline for filing his Second Amended Complaint, ultimately until
August 13, 2018, cautioning him that “no further extensions will be granted absent
good cause shown” and that the failure the file an amended complaint by the
deadline may “result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice.” Dkt. Nos.
17 and 21. Despite the extensions of time, Chun neglected to file an amended
complaint or respond to the Court’s June 13, 2018 Order in any other fashion. As a
result, the Court dismissed this action without prejudice on August 20. Dkt. No. 23.
The next day, upon realizing his error, Chun, who is homeless, filed his
Motion to Reopen. He explains that he “failed [to] notif[y] more time is needed
before the 2nd extension expiration,” because he is “having brain issues, [which]
results in iterative write ups.” Mot. at 1. Chun states that it “is hard writing up
SAC being impaired in the mind.” Id. His mental condition is “compound[ed] by
destitute living standard ills, and by distress of evict[ion] from permanent home,
distress of my parents’ relations with me barred, and dad’s choked off monetary help
to me[.]” Id.
3
Chun filed this Motion one day after judgment was entered. Given that this
action is in the initial pleading stage, reopening the action to allow Plaintiff to file an
amended complaint will result in minimal delay and have little impact on the
proceedings. Given this short delay, there is also little prejudice to any party in
granting the Motion to Reopen. See, e.g., Bateman v. U.S. Postal Serv., 231 F.3d
1220, 1224–25 (9th Cir. 2000) (finding prejudice to defendant “was minimal,”
where it merely “would have lost a quick victory,” which itself “is insufficient to
justify denial of relief under Rule 60(b)(1)”). Further, if the Court did not grant
Chun relief, he would certainly be prejudiced by the termination of this action for
failure to file an amended complaint as opposed to a merits determination. See,
e.g., Lemoge, 587 F.3d at 1196 (granting movants’ motion for relief under Rule
60(b), in part, because they would have been prejudiced by the running of the statute
of limitations, while rejecting defendant’s claim that it would be prejudiced because
it relied on the dismissal of the lawsuit in settling a separate action). Finally, the
facts do not support a finding of bad faith or any gamesmanship on the part of Chun;
rather, it appears that he simply missed the deadline due to inadvertence.
The Court does, however, recognize that the reason for the
delay—inadvertence or carelessness—does not weigh in Plaintiff’s favor. At the
same time, the Motion details current challenges arising from his health and living
conditions, which may present circumstances beyond Chun’s control that
4
contributed to his failure to timely file an amended complaint. The Supreme Court
has held that excusable neglect “encompass[es] situations in which the failure to
comply with a filing deadline is attributable to negligence,” and includes “omissions
caused by carelessness.” Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co., 507 U.S. at 388, 394. The
question of whether neglect is excusable “is at bottom an equitable one, taking into
account all relevant circumstances surrounding the party’s omission.” Id. at 395.
The circumstances and equities present in this case weigh in favor of reopening the
case and allowing Chun a reasonable extension of time to file an amended
complaint. Although he may have acted carelessly, Chun appears to have acted in
good faith. See, e.g., Lemoge, 587 F.3d at 1195–98 (determining that the district
court abused its discretion in not finding excusable neglect within Rule 60(b) when
the plaintiffs’ attorney, due to serious medical issues, failed to timely serve the
summons and complaint, but seven months later, moved to set aside the district
court’s dismissal of the case); In re Zilog, Inc., 450 F.3d 996, 1006–07 (9th Cir.
2006) (concluding that the bankruptcy court abused its discretion in failing to find
excusable neglect pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9006(b)(1) when pro se employees
failed to timely file proofs of claim).
In sum, considering all of the relevant circumstances, the Court determines
that Chun has demonstrated excusable neglect within the meaning of Rule 60(b)(1).
The Court grants Chun an extension of one-week from the date of this Order in
5
which to file an amended complaint consistent with the 6/13/18 Order. The Court
expects full compliance with its orders in the future and CAUTIONS Chun that no
further extensions of time will be granted, absent exceptional circumstances.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Chun’s Motion to Reopen,
Dkt. No. 26, and sets aside the judgment entered on August 20, 2018. Dkt. No. 24.
The Clerk of Court is directed to reopen this action.
Chun is permitted leave to file an amended complaint that complies with the
requirements of this Court’s 6/13/18 Order by no later than September 4, 2018.
Failure to file an amended complaint by this deadline will result in the automatic
dismissal of this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 27, 2018 at Honolulu, Hawai‘i.
Chun v. Nakashima; Civil No. 18-00177 DKW-KSC; ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
REOPEN
6
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?