Brown v. Arias
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff moved to vacate and reenter judgment under Rule 60(b)(1) to allow for a timely Notice of Appeal after a clerical error prevented the original filing. The court granted the motion, ordered the Clerk to vacate the prior judgment and enter a new one, and set a deadline of July 31, 2024, for the Plaintiff to file the Notice of Appeal.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to vacate and reenter judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1) granted“Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is hereby GRANTED.” | agree with court The court applied the four-factor test for excusable neglect from Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership. The facts recited—that the legal assistant attempted to file over a month early, paid the fee, but failed due to clerical error, and that the plaintiff is serving a life sentence—strongly support a finding of excusable neglect. The lack of opposition by the defendant further supports the grant. The decision follows from the cited law and the record. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable legal standard (Rule 60(b)(1) and the Pioneer factors) and applies them to the specific facts of the case (clerical error, early attempt to file, high stakes due to life sentence). The reasoning is concise but sufficient to support the result. It does not explicitly detail how each of the four Pioneer factors was weighed individually, but the conclusion that they 'weigh in favor' is supported by the narrative.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JONAS BROWN, Case No. 23-cv-0778-BAS-DDL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER VACATING AND 13 v. REENTERING JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO RULE 60(b)(1) 14 ROBERTO ARIAS, (ECF No. 14) 15 Defendant. 16 17 On April 4, 2024, Plaintiff Jonas Brown (“Plaintiff” or “Brown”) moved this Court 18 to vacate and reenter its January 16, 2024, judgment so Plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal could 19 be timely. (ECF No. 14.) Plaintiff moved for such relief under Federal Rule of Civil 20 Procedure (“Rule”) 60(b)(1) on the grounds of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or 21 excusable neglect; and (6) on the grounds of “any other reason that justifies relief.” (Id.) 22 The defendant did not oppose. 23 Broadly, Rule 60(b) allows a district court to vacate and reenter judgment to restore 24 the right to appeal in “limited circumstances.” Washington v. Ryan, 833 F.3d 1087, 1091 25 (9th Cir. 2016). Rule 60(b)(1) specifically permits it in cases of “mistake, inadvertence, 26 surprise, or excusable neglect.” The district court is empowered to exercise this discretion 27 to even “trigger a new filing deadline.” Washington, 833 F.3d at 1092 (citing Hill v. 28 Hawes, 320 U.S. 520, 523–24 (1944) (“The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit the 1 |}amendment or vacation of a judgment for clerical mistakes or errors arising from oversight 2 || or omission and authorize the court to relieve a party from a judgment or order taken against 3 through his mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect.”). 4 Having considered Plaintiffs motion and accompanying exhibits and the lack of the 5 || defendant’s opposition, the Court finds all four factors considered in determining excusable 6 ||neglect weigh in favor of granting Plaintiffs motion. See Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. 7 || Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 394 (1993). Plaintiff's counsel’s legal 8 || assistant apparently attempted to file Plaintiff's Notice of Appeal more than a month before 9 || the deadline, including paying the requisite filing fee, but failed to complete the filing due 10 || to clerical error. (ECF No. 17-4.) Any delay caused by this neglect prejudices the plaintiff, 11 the defendant, as the plaintiff must suffer a delayed appeals process. Additionally, 12 || because Plaintiff is serving a life sentence, the stakes of this case are also extraordinarily 13 || high, which further weighs in favor of granting the motion. Washington, 833 F.3d at 1098. 14 || Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is hereby GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is instructed to 15 || vacate its prior judgment in this case. (ECF No. 14.) Subsequently, the Clerk of Court is 16 |/instructed to enter a new judgment in this case with the date of this order. Plaintiff must 17 || file his Notice of Appeal, to the extent he still wishes to file one, no later than July 31, 18 ||2024. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 A 21 ||DATED: July 1, 2024 ( yi A A (Hiphan 6 22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28 ~_9.