Carlos Flores v. City of Los Angeles

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: April 13, 2022
• Docket: 2:21-cv-07918
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Case 2:21-cv-07918-ODW-AGR Document 30 Filed 04/13/22 Page 1 of 11 Page ID #:153

O 1

6 7 United States District Court 8 9 Central District of California 10 11 CARLOS FLORES, Case № 2:21-cv-07918-ODW (AGRx)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDER

14 CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., OF DISMISSAL [20]

15 Defendants. 16 17 I. INTRODUCTION 18 On October 4, 2022, Plaintiff Carlos Flores initiated this action against 19 Defendants City of Los Angeles (“City”) and Police Officer Alvarado Carlos (“Officer 20 Carlos”). (Compl., ECF No. 1.) On January 25, 2022, after Flores failed to respond 21 to the Court’s Order to Show Cause regarding service of process on Officer Carlos, 22 the Court dismissed Officer Carlos. (Min. Order, ECF No. 19.) Flores now moves to 23 set aside the Court’s Order. (Mot. Set Aside (“Mot.” or “Motion”), ECF No. 20.) For 24 the reasons below, the Court GRANTS the Motion.1 25 26 27 _________________ 1 Having carefully considered the papers filed in connection with the Motion, the Court deemed the 28 matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15. Case 2:21-cv-07918-ODW-AGR Document 30 Filed 04/13/22 Page 2 of 11 Page ID #:154

1 II. BACKGROUND 2 Flores alleges that, on October 20, 2020, during a routine traffic stop, City 3 police officers, including Officer Carlos, handcuffed Flores, patted him down, and 4 detained him for thirty minutes with no probable cause. (Compl. ¶¶ 10–13.) On 5 October 4, 2021, Flores filed a Complaint in this Court against the City and Officer 6 Carlos, asserting claims for violations of federal and state constitutional rights and 7 several state-law claims sounding in tort. 8 On October 25, 2021, while the case was still assigned to Magistrate Judge 9 Michael R. Wilner as part of the Magistrate Judge Direct Assignment Program, 10 Magistrate Judge Wilner ordered Flores to “submit a report regarding the status of 11 service of process in the action . . . by filing a statement . . . plus proof of service of 12 process by or before November 15, 2021” and indicated that “[f]ailure to respond to 13 this order may lead the Court to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute.” (Order re: 14 Service, ECF No. 9.) Magistrate Judge Wilner reiterated that timely service pursuant 15 to Federal Rule Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 4(m) was required by January 2, 2022. (Id.) 16 As reflected in the Court’s docket for this case, as of November 15, 2021, Flores had 17 not filed a status report or proof of service for Officer Carlos. 18 On November 23, 2021, the City filed its Answer. (Answer, ECF No. 10.) On 19 January 13, 2022, with the case now before this Court, the Court ordered Flores to file 20 timely proof of service or show good cause why timely service had not been made 21 upon Officer Carlos. The Court set a deadline of January 20, 2022. (Order to Show 22 Cause (“OSC”), ECF No. 18.) This Court repeated Magistrate Judge Wilner’s earlier 23 warning that “[f]ailure to timely or adequately respond to this Order may result in the 24 dismissal of Police Officer Alvarado Carlos without further warning.” (Id.) On 25 January 25, 2022, after Flores failed to respond to the Court’s OSC, the Court 26 dismissed Officer Carlos. (Min. Order 1.) 27 28

2 Case 2:21-cv-07918-ODW-AGR Document 30 Filed 04/13/22 Page 3 of 11 Page ID #:155

1 Eight days later, on February 2, 2022, Flores moved to set aside the Court’s 2 order dismissing Officer Carlos, pursuant to Rules 60(c)(1) and 60(b). (Mot. 2.) The 3 City opposes Flores’s Motion. (Opp’n Mot. Set Aside (“Opp’n”), ECF No. 22.) 4 III. LEGAL STANDARD 5 Motions to vacate an order are cognizable under Rule 60(b). TCI Grp. Life Ins. 6 Plan v. Knoebber, 244 F.3d 691, 695 (9th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds by 7 Egelhoff v. Egelhoff ex rel. Breiner, 532 U.S. 141, 147–50; Fed. R. Civ. P 60(b). 8 Rule 60(b)(1) “grants district courts discretion to relieve a party from a judgment or 9 order for reason of ‘mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” Id. 10 “Although the application of Rule 60(b) is committed to the discretion of the district 11 courts,” the Ninth Circuit has explained that “as a general matter, Rule 60(b) is 12 ‘remedial in nature and . . . must be liberally applied.’” Id. at 695–96 (quoting Falk v. 13 Allen, 739 F.2d 461, 463 (9th Cir. 1984)) (internal alterations in original). 14 IV. DISCUSSION 15 Flores argues the Court should set aside its order dismissing Officer Carlos 16 pursuant to Rule 60(b) because Flores’s failure to respond to the Court’s orders 17 regarding service of process was due to excusable neglect. (Mot. 2, 5.) Additionally, 18 Flores contends this Court must extend the time for service under Rule 4(m) because 19 the failure to serve Officer Carlos is also due to excusable neglect, which, Flores 20 argues, constitutes good cause. (Id. at 10.) The Court addresses each argument in 21 turn. 22 A. Rule 60(b); Excusable Neglect 23 Determining whether a party’s neglect is excusable is an equitable 24 determination that “tak[es] account of all relevant circumstances surrounding the 25 party’s omission.” Pioneer Inv. Servs. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 26 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993). Factors courts consider in making this determination 27 include (1) danger of prejudice to the defendants, (2) the length of the delay and its 28 potential impact on the proceedings, (3) the reason for the delay, and (4) whether the

3 Case 2:21-cv-07918-ODW-AGR Document 30 Filed 04/13/22 Page 4 of 11 Page ID #:156

1 party seeking leniency acted in good faith. Briones v. Riviera Hotel & Casino, 2 116 F.3d 379, 381 (9th Cir. 1997). The Court may also examine prejudice to the 3 plaintiff. Lemoge v. United States, 587 F.3d 1188, 1195 (9th Cir. 2009). Moreover, 4 when, as here, the order the movant seeks to set aside amounts to a denial of an 5 opportunity to be heard on the merits, the court must account for the principle that “a 6 case should, whenever possible, be decided on the merits.’” Knoebber, 244 F.3d at 7 696 (quoting Falk, 739 F.2d at 463). 8 1. Prejudice to Defendants 9 First, the Court considers the danger of prejudice to the defendants. Briones, 10 116 F.3d at 381. “To be prejudicial, the setting aside of a judgment must result in 11 greater harm than simply delaying resolution of the case.” Knoebber, 244 F.3d at 701. 12 Here, the case is still in its early stages. The City filed an Answer and worked 13 with Flores to prepare a joint report pursuant to Rule 26(f). (Answer; Joint Report, 14 ECF No. 21.) The deadline to hear motions to amend pleadings or add parties is 15 June 13, 2022, and fact discovery does not close until August 15, 2022. (Scheduling 16 & Case Management Order 24, ECF No. 23.) Thus, there is still time to bring Officer 17 Carlos into the case in a way that is fair to both him and the City. Notably, the City’s 18 Opposition lacks substantive arguments suggesting either the City or Officer Carlos 19 will suffer prejudice if the Court sets aside Officer Carlos’s dismissal. (See Opp’n.) 20 Accordingly, the danger of prejudice to Defendants from setting aside Officer 21 Carlos’s dismissal is relatively low. Thus, this factor militates strongly in favor of 22 setting aside dismissal of Officer Carlos. 23 2. Length of Delay and Impact on Proceedings; Reason for Delay 24 Next, the Court considers the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, and 25 the impact on the proceedings. Briones, 116 F.3d at 381. No one contends, nor could 26 they, that the period of time between when the Court issued its order of dismissal and 27 when Flores moved to set aside—eight days—constitutes improper delay. But “delay” 28 in this context also refers more broadly to the postponement of proceedings that

4 Case 2:21-cv-07918-ODW-AGR Document 30 Filed 04/13/22 Page 5 of 11 Page ID #:157

1 occurred due to the mistake or excusable neglect that led to the challenged order. See, 2 e.g., Spain v. Sundt Constr., Inc., No. CV11-1617-PHX-JAT, 2012 WL 260037, at *2 3 (D. Ariz. Jan. 30, 2012) (considering delay caused by plaintiff’s failure to respond to 4 court orders). Here, the reasons for the delay would include the reasons why Flores’s 5 counsel failed to respond to the Court’s orders to show cause regarding proof of 6 service.1 7 Here, Attorney Lorant admits he missed the email notifying him that the Court 8 had issued an OSC. (Decl. Etan Z. Lorant (“Lorant Decl.”) ¶¶ 11–14, ECF No. 20.) 9 The reason, he declares, is that his email program threaded the email with another 10 email he had received from the Court two hours prior, thus hiding the notification 11 email. 12 “At least for purposes of Rule 60(b), ‘excusable neglect’ is understood to 13 encompass situations in which the failure to comply with a filing deadline is 14 attributable to negligence.” Pioneer Inv. Servs., 507 U.S. at 394. In one case 15 predating the era of the internet, a district court found excusable neglect where the 16 summons and complaint had inadvertently been put in a pile of junk mail and 17 defendant moved promptly for relief upon discovery of the error. Standard Enters., 18 Inc. v. Bag-It, Inc., 115 F.R.D. 38, 39 (S.D.N.Y. 1987). By contrast, another district 19 court found the neglect inexcusable where counsel had been notified that his email 20 address in CM/ECF was not current and he nevertheless let a month pass by before 21 checking the docket of the case. Yeschick v. Mineta, 675 F.3d 622, 629–31 (6th Cir. 22 2012). 23 Attorney Lorant’s error is more like failing to notice a court document in a pile 24 of junk mail than systematically failing to keep abreast of the docket. Accordingly, 25 the Court finds Attorney Lorant’s error in this case to be more of the human-error 26 variety of neglect which courts have found to be excusable. See U.S. v. Signed 27 1 To be clear, in this context, delay does not refer to Flores’s previous delay in timely serving Officer 28 Carlos; that issue goes to whether the Court should grant additional time for service under Rule 4(m), not whether the Court should set aside dismissal

5 Case 2:21-cv-07918-ODW-AGR Document 30 Filed 04/13/22 Page 6 of 11 Page ID #:158

1 Personal Check No. 730 of Yubran S. Mesle, 615 F.3d 1085, 1092 (9th Cir. 2010) 2 (“[S]imple carelessness is not sufficient to treat a negligent failure to reply as 3 inexcusable, at least without a demonstration that other equitable factors, such as 4 prejudice, weigh heavily in favor of denial of the motion to set aside a default.”). And 5 to the extent this error is not excusable, this particular error, in and of itself, did not 6 contribute significantly to the delay in this case. 7 That said, Attorney Lorant fails to explain why his co-counsel did not see the 8 notification about the OSC. Attorney Zavala is also an attorney of record for Flores in 9 this case, which means he, too, receives an email whenever a new document is filed. 10 Attorney Zavala’s declaration fails to engage with this point. (See generally Decl. 11 Francisco M. Zavala (“Zavala Decl.”), ECF No. 20.) 12 Furthermore, Attorneys Lorant and Zavala both fail to explain why they did not 13 comply with Magistrate Judge Wilner’s November 15, 2021 deadline. The Court 14 based its dismissal of Officer Carlos on Flores’s noncompliance with both that 15 deadline and the January 2022 deadline. A complete discussion of the reasons for 16 delay would have included a justification for missing Magistrate Judge Wilner’s 17 deadline. 18 Even so, if the Court sets aside Officer Carlos’s dismissal, the impact on the 19 proceedings will be low and will consist mostly of a short delay which, as discussed 20 above, does not appear to prejudice Defendants. 21 Overall, these factors do not militate significantly in either direction. 22 3. Good Faith 23 Next, the Court examines whether Flores acted in good faith in making the 24 mistake that led to Officer Carlos’s dismissal. Briones, 116 F.3d at 381. Certainly, 25 the mistake made by Attorney Lorant in missing the email notification appears to be a 26 good faith mistake. But, as discussed, Attorney Zavala should have also been 27 receiving emails from CM/ECF, and neither attorney addresses this point in their 28 declarations.

6 Case 2:21-cv-07918-ODW-AGR Document 30 Filed 04/13/22 Page 7 of 11 Page ID #:159

1 As an additional consideration, several times in late 2021 and early 2022, 2 Attorney Zavala contacted his attorney service regarding the status of service on 3 Officer Carlos. (Zavala Decl. ¶¶ 5–11.) This suggests Flores and his attorneys 4 genuinely intended to serve Officer Carlos and were making efforts in that regard, 5 indicating good faith, even if the efforts backed by that good faith were not thorough. 6 Moreover, the City does not dispute Flores acted in good faith. (See Opp’n.) Thus, 7 this factor militates moderately in favor of setting aside Officer Carlos’s dismissal. 8 4. Prejudice to the Plaintiff 9 Finally, the Court considers the danger of prejudice to the plaintiff. Lemoge, 10 587 F.3d at 1195. Here, Flores would be materially prejudiced by the denial of relief. 11 Officer Carlos is the key individual alleged to have committed wrongs against Flores, 12 and not having Officer Carlos in this action would prejudice Flores’s ability to build 13 and make his case. Thus, this factor militates in favor of setting aside this Court’s 14 dismissal of Offer Carlos. 15 On the balance, Flores meets his burden of showing excusable neglect. The 16 Court accordingly finds it appropriate to set aside Officer Carlos’s dismissal. 17 B. Rule 4(m) 18 The analysis does not end there, however. Flores seeks to set aside Officer 19 Carlos’s dismissal and then to serve Officer Carlos with process. But the Rule 4(m) 20 deadline for Flores to serve Officer Carlos was January 2, 2022. Thus, a complete 21 disposition of this Motion requires the Court to determine whether to extend the time 22 for serving Officer Carlos pursuant to Rule 4(m). As the Ninth Circuit has instructed: 23 Rule 4(m) requires a two-step analysis in deciding whether or not to extend the prescribed time period for the service of a complaint. First, 24 upon a showing of good cause for the defective service, the court must 25 extend the time period. Second, if there is no good cause, the court has the discretion to dismiss without prejudice or to extend the time period. 26 27 In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d 507, 512 (9th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). The plaintiff 28 bears the burden of establishing good cause. Sebastian Brown Prods., LLC v.

7 Case 2:21-cv-07918-ODW-AGR Document 30 Filed 04/13/22 Page 8 of 11 Page ID #:160

1 Muzooka, Inc., 143 F. Supp. 3d 1026, 1035 (N.D. Cal. 2015); cf. Crowley v. Bannister, 2 734 F.3d 967, 976 (9th Cir. 2013). 3 Using this framework, the Court finds that Flores fails to establish good cause 4 to extend the time for serving Officer Carlos, but the Court nevertheless exercises its 5 discretion and allows Flores one final opportunity to serve Officer Carlos. 6 1. Good Cause 7 To establish good cause for failure to effect service under Rule 4(m), a plaintiff 8 must show at a minimum “excusable neglect.” Sheehan, 253 F.3d at 512. Courts are 9 to consider whether “(a) the party to be served received actual notice of the lawsuit; 10 (b) the defendant would suffer no prejudice; and (c) plaintiff would be severely 11 prejudiced if his complaint were dismissed.” Id. Courts have found good cause where 12 “plaintiff attempted service but did not complete it; plaintiff was confused about the 13 requirements of service; or plaintiff was prevented from serving defendants by factors 14 beyond his control.” Television Signal Corp. v. City & County of San Francisco, 15 193 F.R.D. 645, 646 (N.D. Cal. 2000). 16 Given that the Court has already provided Flores with an opportunity to show 17 good cause for an extension of the service deadline, (see OSC), and given that this 18 Motion constitutes Flores’s final opportunity to make that showing, the Court 19 expected a more robust showing of good cause accompanying this Motion than Flores 20 provided. Attorney Lorant declares that the case was filed on October 4, 2021, and 21 that on October 26, 2021, he provided the summons and complaint to his attorney 22 service. (Lorant Decl. ¶¶ 2, 4.) On November 16, 2021, December 15, 2021, 23 December 17, 2021, and January 9, 2022, Attorney Zavala inquired with the attorney 24 service, and during some of these calls the attorney service apparently misled Zavala 25 by representing that Officer Carlos had been served. (Zavala Decl. ¶¶ 5–8.) 26 Eventually, Flores’s attorneys learned that the City had been served but Officer Carlos 27 had not. (Lorant Decl. ¶ 9.) On January 10, 2022, Flores’s attorneys retained a new 28 process server. (Id.) As of January 25, 2022, the date the Court dismissed Officer

8 Case 2:21-cv-07918-ODW-AGR Document 30 Filed 04/13/22 Page 9 of 11 Page ID #:161

1 Carlos, there was still no proof of service on file for Officer Carlos. 2 In addition to these facts, Attorney Lorant declares that there was a death in his 3 family in January 2022, a circumstance which consumed much of his time and energy, 4 particularly around the time when the Court issued its January 13 OSC. (Lorant Decl. 5 ¶¶ 10–11.) 6 Taking the evidence as a whole, several gaps in the attorney declarations 7 weaken Flores’s showing of good cause. First, neither attorney attempts to address 8 why they collectively ignored Magistrate Judge Wilner’s November 15, 2021 deadline 9 to file a proof of service or a status report. And although Attorney Zavala spoke to the 10 attorney service twice (on November 16, 2021, and again on December 15, 2021), by 11 December 17, 2021, when no proof of service was on file and with the upcoming 12 holidays, Flores’s attorneys should have recognized that the ninety-day deadline under 13 Rule 4(m) was Sunday, January 2, 2022. Flores’s attorneys should not have left the 14 matter unaddressed over the holidays, hoping that the Court would provide more time 15 for service in early 2022 after the deadline expired. 16 Furthermore, neither attorney explains why, when they realized Officer Carlos 17 had not been served, they did not immediately file a Status Report with the Court, 18 explaining the situation and asking for an extension of the deadline. Finally, although 19 Flores’s attorneys engaged a new process server on January 10, 2022, they 20 nevertheless fail to provide a meaningful explanation why there was still no proof of 21 service on file fifteen days later, when the Court dismissed Officer Carlos. Certainly, 22 the death in Attorney Lorant’s family understandably and justifiably consumed his 23 time and attention in mid-January, (see Lorant Decl. ¶ 10), but Attorney Lorant had 24 co-counsel throughout this process who was aware of the status of the case and who 25 could have followed up with the new process server or assisted with the filing of 26 status documents, (see Zavala Decl. ¶¶ 9–11). 27 In short, the overall course of conduct of Flores’s attorneys since the inception 28 of this case does not indicate a focused effort to serve Officer Carlos in a timely

9 Case 2:21-cv-07918-ODW-AGR Document 30 Filed 04/13/22 Page 10 of 11 Page ID #:162

1 manner. Nor does service appear particularly difficult; as implied by Attorney 2 Zavala’s own declaration, a plaintiff serving a police officer in his or her official 3 capacity need only serve the subpoena control officer at the officer’s assigned station. 4 (See Zavala Decl. ¶ 3.) Flores’s attorneys cannot avoid responsibility for the delay by 5 hiding behind the errors and omissions of their process servers. 6 For these reasons, the Court finds Flores fails to show good cause to extend the 7 time for serving Officer Carlos. 8 2. Discretion 9 “[I]f there is no good cause, the court has the discretion to dismiss without 10 prejudice or to extend the time period.” Sheehan, 253 F.3d at 512. Here, the Court 11 elects to extend the time period for serving Officer Carlos one final time. The Court 12 makes this election light of (1) the fact that trial is not until December 2022, (2) the 13 lack of apparent prejudice to either Defendant; (3) the observation that the interests of 14 the City and of Officer Carlos appear to be generally aligned, and (4) the inefficiency 15 that would result were the Court to dismiss Officer Carlos and Flores to subsequently 16 file a new, separate case against Officer Carlos. The Court accordingly GRANTS 17 Flores’s Motion. 18 /// 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 ///

10 Case|P:21-cv-07918-ODW-AGR Document 30 Filed 04/13/22 Page 11o0f11 Page ID #:163

1 Vv. CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS Flores’s Motion to Set 3 || Aside Order of Dismissal. (ECF No. 20.) Officer Carlos is hereby REINSTATED as 4 || a Defendant in this case. Flores shall serve Officer Carlos immediately and shall file a 5 || proof of service no later than fifteen (15) days from the date of this Order. This 6 || deadline is final and will not be further extended; failure to comply will result in 7 || dismissal of Officer Carlos without further warning. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 1] April 13, 2022 Te ; D a ; 13 Uv A 14 OTIS D. WRIGHT, I 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

ll