(PS) Anenson v. Vacaville Unified School District

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RYAN ANENSON et al., No. 2:20-cv-00901-DJC-DB PS 12 Plaintiffs, 13 ORDER v. 14 VACAVILLE UNIFIED SCHOOL 15 DISTRICT, et al., 16 Defendants, 17

18 Plaintiffs are proceeding in this action pro se. On March 13, 2024, this action 19 was dismissed for Plaintiffs’ failure to prosecute. (See ECF Nos. 103, 107.) On April 9, 20 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Re-Open Case (“Motion”). (ECF No. 109.) For the 21 following reasons, this Motion will be denied. 22 BACKGROUND 23 On October 25, 2022, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint. 24 (ECF No. 62.) Plaintiffs were granted leave to amend within 20 days. (Id.) Plaintiffs 25 were advised that failure to file an amended complaint would result in dismissal of the 26 action with prejudice. (Id.) 27 Plaintiffs never filed an amended complaint. Instead, Plaintiffs’ attorney moved 28 1 to withdraw from the case on November 8, 2022. (ECF No. 63.) The Motion to 2 Withdraw was granted on December 20, 2022, and the Court stayed the action for 3 120 days to permit Plaintiffs to retain new counsel.1 (ECF No. 83.) The stay was lifted 4 on June 13, 2023, over 170 days later. (ECF No. 93.) 5 On July 19, 2023, Defendants moved to dismiss the action for lack of 6 prosecution as Plaintiffs had neither retained new counsel nor filed an amended 7 complaint. (ECF No. 96.) Plaintiffs failed to timely oppose the motion. On August 29, 8 2023, the Magistrate Judge assigned to this matter granted Plaintiffs an extension to 9 oppose the motion by October 10, 2023. (ECF No. 101.) Plaintiffs still failed to 10 oppose. 11 Accordingly, on October 31, 2023, the Magistrate Judge recommended the 12 action be dismissed for lack of prosecution. (ECF No. 103.) This Court adopted those 13 recommendations and dismissed the action with prejudice on March 13, 2024. (ECF 14 No. 107.) The action was closed. 15 LEGAL STANDARDS 16 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, a court may, on motion, “relieve a 17 party . . . from a final judgment, order, or proceeding” for reasons including “mistake, 18 inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect” and “any other reason that justifies 19 relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Excusable neglect encompasses situations in which the 20 failure to comply with a filing deadline is attributable to negligence, and includes 21 omissions caused by carelessness. Lemoge v. United States, 587 F.3d 1188, 1192 (9th 22 Cir. 2009). Rule 60(b) “is remedial in nature and . . . must be liberally applied.” Falk v. 23 Allen, 739 F.2d 461, 463 (9th Cir. 1984). This does not, however, absolve the moving 24 party “from the burden of demonstrating that, in a particular case, the interest in 25 deciding the case on the merits should prevail over the very important interest in the 26 finality of judgments.” TCI Group Life Ins. Plan v. Knoebber, 244 F.3d 691, 696 (9th 27 1 Plaintiffs gained knowledge of the order granting the Motion to Withdraw on January 5, 2023. (ECF 28 No. 88.) 1 Cir. 2001), overruled on other grounds, Egelhoff v. Egelhoff ex rel. Breiner, 532 U.S. 2 141 (2001). 3 The determination of whether neglect is excusable under Rule 60(b) “is at 4 bottom an equitable one, taking account of all relevant circumstances surrounding the 5 party's omission.” Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 6 380, 395 (1993). A court should consider at least the following four factors: “(1) the 7 danger of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential 8 impact on the proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the movant 9 acted in good faith.” Bateman v. U.S. Postal Serv., 231 F.3d 1220, 1223–24 (9th Cir. 10 2000). 11 ANALYSIS 12 Plaintiffs argue that this case should be re-opened because they are making 13 diligent efforts to obtain counsel and have “not caused delays in court proceedings 14 intentionally or otherwise, though through misunderstandings, challenging 15 experiences, [and] medical emergencies, including a learning curve as Pro Se litigants, 16 this may have been perceived otherwise.” (ECF No. 109.) They state that, if the case is 17 reopened, they intend to proceed as pro se litigants while they search for new counsel 18 and will attempt to respond to court filings and requests appropriately. (Id.) 19 This Court recognizes that dismissal for failure to prosecute is a “harsh penalty” 20 and a Rule 60(b) motion to re-open a case dismissed on that basis should be liberally 21 construed. See Lal v. California, 610 F.3d 518, 524–27 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court also 22 recognizes that pro se filings should get the benefit of any doubt. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 23 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). 24 However, even construing Plaintiffs’ Motion liberally, this Court finds no basis to 25 re-open this case under Rule 60. In their Motion, Plaintiffs do not explain what diligent 26 attempts they have made at obtaining counsel; why they have been unable to obtain 27 counsel for over a year; or when they plan on filing an amended complaint. Plaintiffs 28 make no attempt to meet the standards of Rule 60(b). 1 The Court finds Plaintiffs’ failure to file an amended complaint particularly 2 | troubling. At the time the Court dismissed this action, Plaintiffs had not stated a 3 || cognizable claim for relief, and when given the time and opportunity to file an 4 | amended complaint, they failed to do so. There has been no operative complaint in 5 || this action for a year and a half. 6 Accordingly, the Court finds the equities are not in Plaintiffs’ favor, and will deny 7 | Plaintiffs’ Motion. 8 CONCLUSION 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Re-Open Case 10 | (ECF No. 109) is DENIED. 11 12 IT 1S SO ORDERED. 13 | Dated: _April 22, 2024 “Daniel . CoD tto— Hon. Daniel □□ |. Cod 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 13 | □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28