Robert Evans v. County of Imperial, The State of California, and Does 1-50

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: February 5, 2026
• Docket: 3:25-cv-00249
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT EVANS, ) Case No.: 25-cv-00249-BEN-LR ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. ) MOTION TO SET ASIDE ) JUDGMENT 14 COUNTY OF IMPERIAL, THE STATE ) OF CALIFORNIA, and DOES 1-50, 15 ) Defendant. ) 16

17 18 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to set aside judgment pursuant to Federal 19 Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). (ECF No. 6.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court 20 GRANTS the motion. 21 BACKGROUND 22 Plaintiff Robert Evans, represented by counsel James Arrasmith, initiated this 23 action in California state court on December 3, 2024, naming the State of California and 24 the County of Imperial as defendants. On February 3, 2025, the State of California, 25 represented by Attorney General Robert Bonta, filed its answer in state court. The 26 following day, the County of Imperial, represented by Dick Semerdjian, Esq., and Chad 27 Thurstan, Esq., removed Plaintiff’s claims against it to this Court. 28 1 On February 10, 2025, the County filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 3.) 2 Plaintiff filed no opposition. On March 28, 2025, the Court granted the motion and 3 dismissed the Complaint based on Plaintiff’s waiver under Local Rule 7.1(f)(2)(b). On 4 May 15, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant motion alleging that he never saw the motion to 5 dismiss filed by the County of Imperial because his email was not functioning properly. 6 (ECF. No. 6.) 7 LEGAL STANDARD 8 “Rule 60(b) allows for relief from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for any of 9 six reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly 10 discovered evidence that could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial; 11 (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment 12 has been satisfied; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.” Trendsettah USA, Inc. v. 13 Swisher Int’l, Inc., 31 F.4th 1124, 1136 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting Hanson v. Shubert, 968 14 F.3d 1014, 1017 n.1 (9th Cir. 2020) (citation modified)). 15 16 The moving party “bears the burden of proving the existence of a justification for 17 Rule 60(b) relief. Cassidy v. Tenorio, 856 F.2d 1412, 1415 (9th Cir. 1988). “Motions for 18 relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) are addressed to the sound discretion of the 19 district court.” Casey v. Albertson’s, Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1257 (9th Cir. 2004). 20 /// 21 /// 22 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 27 /// 28 1 DISCUSSION 2 Excusable Neglect Under Rule 60(b)(1) 3 “[A]t least for purposes of Rule 60(b), ‘excusable neglect’ is understood to 4 encompass situations in which the failure to comply with a filing deadline is attributable 5 to negligence.” Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 6 394 (1993).1 The determination of whether a party has demonstrated excusable neglect 7 “is at bottom an equitable one, taking account of all relevant circumstances surrounding 8 the party’s omission.” Briones v. Riviera Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d 379, 381–82 (9th 9 Cir. 1997) (quoting Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 395). Courts must consider four factors: (1) the 10 danger of prejudice to the non-movant; (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact 11 on judicial proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the 12 reasonable control of the movant; and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith. 13 Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 395; see also Briones, 116 F.3d at 381. 14 15 Applying the Pioneer factors, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s failure to comply with 16 the filing deadlines constituted excusable neglect meriting relief. Here, Plaintiff moved 17 for Rule 60 relief within the required time frame of a year. Furthermore, this case is still 18 in the early stages, and the Defendants will not suffer legally significant prejudice that 19 impacts the judicial proceedings. Even though Plaintiffs’ email issues are his own 20

21 22 1 Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 388 (citing Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 791 23 (1983)) “[T]he Rule grants reprieve to out-of-time filings that were delayed by ‘neglect’ 24 [is]. . . “‘to leave undone or unattended to esp[ecially] through carelessness.’” The Court 25 stated that “Congress plainly contemplated that the courts would be permitted, where 26 appropriate, to accept late filings caused by inadvertence, mistake, or carelessness, as 27 well as by intervening circumstances beyond the party’s control.” Id. 28 1 making, the Supreme Court has made clear that “[t]he ‘excusable neglect’ standard for 2 allowing late filings is also used elsewhere in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” 3 Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 392. Further, the Court stated that “[t]he same is true of Rule 4 60(b)(1), which permits courts to reopen judgments for reasons of ‘mistake, inadvertence, 5 surprise, or excusable neglect,’ but only on motion made within one year of the 6 judgment. Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 393. 7 Most importantly, the court stated that “we give little weight to the fact that 8 counsel was experiencing upheaval in his law practice at the time of the bar date.” 9 Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 398. Moreover, there is no indication that Plaintiff filed this Motion 10 in bad faith, as the delay in this case is not great and the danger of prejudice to 11 Defendants is low. See Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1260 (9th Cir. 12 2010) (“critically, the record is devoid of any indication either that [the plaintiff’s] 13 counsel acted in bad faith or that an extension of time would prejudice defendants.”).2 14 Accordingly, the motion to set aside the judgment is GRANTED. 15 16 /// 17 /// 18 19

20 21 2 Additionally, the Court takes judicial notice that the answer filed in state court was that 22 of the State of California, filed by Attorney General Robert Bonta—not that of the 23 County of Imperial by counsel Mr. Semerdijian and Mr. Thurstan. (ECF No. 8-2 at 1.) 24 Plaintiff represented otherwise. Counsel has a duty to notify the Court when an assertion 25 is later determined to be inaccurate. Plaintiff made this assertion on May 15, 2025, 26 relating to the State of California’s answer. It is now January 2026, and Plaintiff has 27 offered no correction or clarification. 28 1 || CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to 3 Set Aside Judgment (ECF No. 6.) and VACATES the judgment entered in this case on 4 March 28, 2025. (ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff is to file his opposition to the County of > Imperial’s motion to dismiss within 15 days. 6 . 7 || IT IS SO ORDERED. Niypuire, 8 || DATED: February 5, 2026 9 HON. ROGER T. BENITEZ United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _5-