Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05437/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05437-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAY YANG, et al., )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

)

MAGEC, et al., )

)

)

Defendant. )

)

)

No. CV-F-01-5437 REC/LJO

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS'

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM

ORDERS DENYING REQUEST FOR

EXTENSION AND DISMISSING

CASE AND DENYING DEFENDANTS'

MOTION TO STRIKE MOTION FOR

RELIEF FROM ORDERS

On May 16, 2005, the court heard plaintiffs' Motion for

Relief from Orders Denying Request for Extension and Dismissing

Case and defendants' Motion to Strike Motion for Relief from

Orders.

Upon due consideration of the record and the arguments of

the parties, the court denies these motions for the reasons set

forth herein.

By Order filed on February 10, 2005, the court dismissed

this action pursuant to Rule 41(b), Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, pursuant to motions to dismiss filed by the

Case 1:01-cv-05437-AWI-SMS Document 408 Filed 05/17/05 Page 1 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

defendants. Judgment for defendants was entered on February 10,

2005. 

On March 14, 2005, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal. 

Also on March 14, 2005, plaintiffs filed a Motion for Relief from

Order, noticing the motion for hearing on Friday, April 22, 2005,

a date on which this court does not conduct law and motion. On

March 25, 2005, plaintiffs filed an Amended Motion for Relief

from Order, noticing the motion for hearing for April 29, 2005,

again a date on which this court does not conduct law and motion. 

On March 31, 2005, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Motion for

Relief from Order, noticing the Second Amended Motion for hearing

on May 2, 2005. On April 14, 2005, the County of Fresno

Defendants, City of Fresno Defendants, City of Clovis Defendants,

and City of Sanger Defendants filed a request for an order

shortening time to file a motion to strike plaintiffs’ motion for

relief from order. The court denied the request for an order

shortening time, advised defendants to file their motion and

notice it for hearing on May 16, and continued plaintiffs’ motion

for relief from order to May 16 as well. Defendants filed their

Motion to Strike on April 14, 2005. This motion has been joined

by the City of Coalinga and Michael Gilmore, and by the CHP and

CDC Defendants. 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Relief from Order dismissing the

action and denying their request for extension of time to file

their opposition to the motions for summary judgment is supported

by declarations filed in the various notices of motion described

Case 1:01-cv-05437-AWI-SMS Document 408 Filed 05/17/05 Page 2 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

above. In other words, there is no single motion filed by

plaintiffs seeking relief from these orders which sets forth the

memorandum of points and authorities and supporting declarations,

making review of plaintiffs’ motion more complicated than it

should be. It is noted that all of the declarations and exhibits

attached to the various pleadings filed in connection with the

Motion for Relief from Order, save one, constitute some of 

plaintiffs’ proposed evidence in opposition to the defendants’

motions for summary judgment. 

In moving for relief from the dismissal of this action

pursuant to Rule 41(b), plaintiffs argue that dismissal is a

harsh sanction that should be imposed only when less drastic

sanctions would not have availed. Plaintiffs assert that the

“exemplars” of plaintiffs’ proposed evidence in opposition to the

motions for summary judgment “illustrate that substantive

oppositions to defendants’ dispositive motions were warranted and

appropriate, and very extensive.” Mr. Holland also files a

declaration focusing on the denial of the request for extension

of time to respond to the motions for summary judgment and 

averring in pertinent part:

2. In seeking and receiving the further time

they requested on more than one occasion to

file their motions (and received), defendants

City and County of Fresno indicated that they

would not be opposed to plaintiffs receiving

further time, given the sheer volume of

materials (defendants indicated the filing

alone of the paper motions at the clerks

window [prior to electronic filing] took

several hours) as well as the complexity of

the case and the dispositive motions. 

Case 1:01-cv-05437-AWI-SMS Document 408 Filed 05/17/05 Page 3 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

4

Thereafter, it is my belief that defendants

aggressively and unfairly refused to

accommodate my need for further time, given

not only the volume and substance of the case

itself, but also the several difficulties I

had encountered with office equipment and my

health. The gist of these difficulties were

laid out in my opposition to the defendants’

motion to dismiss.

Plaintiffs argue:

It is plaintiffs’ position that less drastic

measures were available and could have been

utilized, rather than outright dismissal. 

Counsel’s compliance with the Court’s order

to pay sanctions, as he was able to do so,

showed that court orders were not being

ignored and not being intentionally violated.

...

... Less drastic measures were available and

would have sufficed, as plaintiffs had sought

a relatively short extension, thereby

allowing an additional 30 days to accommodate

both health and office equipment

difficulties.

In their Motion to Strike the Motion for Relief from Order,

defendants note that plaintiffs do not set forth a legal basis

for this court’s reconsideration. Other than referring to

standards governing dismissal of an action pursuant to Rule

41(b), plaintiffs set forth no legal authority for

reconsideration of the court’s Order, i.e., Rules 59 or 60,

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Because judgment for

defendants was entered on February 10, 2005, plaintiffs cannot

rely on Rule 59 because a motion for new trial or to alter or

amend the judgment pursuant to Rule 59 must be filed within 10

days after entry of the judgment. Rule 60(b) allows for relief

Case 1:01-cv-05437-AWI-SMS Document 408 Filed 05/17/05 Page 4 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1Because plaintiffs’ motion does not set forth any basis for

vacating the judgment under Rule 60(b), much less mention Rule

60(b) or any other legal ground upon which relief can be based,

defendants “request the entirety of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Relief

be stricken because Plaintiffs have failed to identify the legal

grounds for such motion ....” The court denies this request

because the parties were able to fully address the applicability of

Rule 60(b) at oral argument. 

5

from judgment. 

In plaintiffs’ reply brief, Mr. Holland asserts that the

legal basis for the Motion for Relief from Order is Rule 60(b)(6)

and that, therefore, the motion is timely because it was filed

less than a year after entry of judgment.1

There is no question that plaintiffs’ Motion for Relief from

Order is timely under Rule 60(b).

Rule 60(b)(6) allows relief from a final judgment or order

for “any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the

judgment.” As explained in United States v. Washington, 394

F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2005):

The Rule 60(b)(6) catchall provision applies

only when the reason for granting relief is

not covered by any of the other reasons set

forth in Rule 60 ... It ‘has been used

sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent

manifest injustice’ and ‘is to be utilized

only where extraordinary circumstances

prevented a party from taking timely action

to prevent or correct an erroneous judgment.’

... Thus, a party seeking to reopen a case

under Rule 60(b)(6) ‘must demonstrate both

injury and circumstances beyond his control

that prevented him from proceeding with the

prosecution or defense of the action in a

proper fashion.’ ....

In their Motion to Strike, defendants note that the court

considered the appropriate factors in deciding to dismiss this

Case 1:01-cv-05437-AWI-SMS Document 408 Filed 05/17/05 Page 5 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

6

action pursuant to Rule 41(b), rather than impose a lesser

sanction. In other words, this has already been considered and

rejected by the court for the reasons stated in the February 10,

2005 Order. The court notes that Mr. Holland does not suggest

any appropriate lesser sanction in the Motion for Relief from

Order and, for the reasons stated in the February 10, 2005 Order,

the court cannot accept any representations by Mr. Holland that

he will timely comply with court orders given his history in this

action, even after being twice warned that the failure to timely

comply would result in dismissal of the action. Furthermore,

defendants submit the Declaration of Erica Camarena, counsel for

the County of Fresno Defendants, the City of Fresno Defendants,

the City of Clovis Defendants, and the City of Sanger Defendants. 

Ms. Camarena avers in pertinent part:

3. Mr. Holland made casual representations

to me that he may be seeking an extension

within which to file his Oppositions to

Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment. 

However, he never made any attempt to contact

me or my office to request or propose

stipulated extension dates nor did he seek

authorization by the court.

4. Mr. Holland did not communicate with me

or my office that difficulties with office

equipment and Mr. Holland’s health prevented

him from timely filing his Opposition.

5. On or about December 2, 2004, I provided

Mr. Holland with electronic copies (via email attachments) of Defendants’s Separate

Statements of Undisputed Facts to save him

time in preparing Plaintiffs’ Oppositions.

6. In a letter dated December 7, 2004, I

confirmed the transmission and informed Mr.

Holland that since he had not advised me of

Case 1:01-cv-05437-AWI-SMS Document 408 Filed 05/17/05 Page 6 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

7

any difficulties in opening the attachments,

I made the assumption that he had no such

problems ....

7. On or about January 10, 2005, (a month

after Defendant’s [sic] filed their Motion to

Dismiss) our office received a letter from

Mr. Holland informing that he needed the

Statements of Undisputed Facts sent to him

again due to computer failure. In his

letter, Mr. Holland wrote that he had

recovered his computer system. ....

8. I immediately re-sent the Statements of

Undisputed Facts on a floppy disc to Mr.

Holland ....

9. At one point in these discussions Mr.

Holland made a statement to me that the

Federal Court’s electronic filing

requirements made it expensive and time

consuming for Mr. Holland to get set up and

ready for filing. He continued that on at

least two occasions, the court clerk redslipped him for not complying with those

requirements.

10. This was the extent of Mr. Holland’s

discussion with me regarding his computer

equipment difficulties. At no time during

these discussions did Mr. Holland indicate

that these issues required an extension to

file his Opposition nor did he request one. 

At no time during these discussions did I

refuse to accommodate his needs.

11. On or about Thursday, January 20, 2005,

I had a telephone conversation with Mr.

Holland wherein Mr. Holland informed me that

he was going to be having dental work done

over the weekend. In that same conversation

Mr. Holland indicated that he was ‘working on

his Opposition.’ I concluded this

conversation by advising Mr. Holland that he

should feel free to contact me if he needed

any information. At no time during this

conversation did Mr. Holland request an

extension, propose stipulated extended dates

or inform counsel that his dental work would

preclude him from timely filing his

Opposition. At no time during this

Case 1:01-cv-05437-AWI-SMS Document 408 Filed 05/17/05 Page 7 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

8

conversation did I refuse to accommodate his

needs.

12. Before receiving further time,

Defendants conferred with all counsel the

very moment an extension was perceived [sic],

proposed extended dates, signed stipulations

and obtained authorizations from the court

changing the scheduling order before the

required filing dates.

Defendants also contend that the various exhibits attached

to the various pleadings filed in connection with the Motion for

Relief “are irrelevant to the core issue in Plaintiffs’ Motion

for Relief; whether Plaintiffs should be relieved from the

Court’s Order dismissing this case and denying their request for

an extension.” Defendants argue that the substance of these

exhibits “is immaterial, impertinent, substantially hearsay and

appears to have been attached in bad faith or with the purpose of

causing delay.” Defendants request that these exhibits, Exhibits

1-5, “be stricken from the Court’s record and not be submitted to

the Ninth Circuit for review in Plaintiffs’ Appeal.” 

In their reply brief, plaintiffs argue that the exhibits are

relevant to the Motion for Relief from Order pursuant to Rule

60(b)(6):

The exhibits filed in support of the motion

for relief, mostly proposed separate

statements in opposition to defendants’

motions for summary judgment support a

conclusion that plaintiffs’ underlying

substantive position(s), that is, oppositions

to defendants’ motions for summary judgment

or adjudication, has (have) [sic] merit. The

sheer volume of detail in those exhibits also

tends to show the extraordinary amount of

work and time needed to prepare them, thus

supporting a conclusion that delay was not

Case 1:01-cv-05437-AWI-SMS Document 408 Filed 05/17/05 Page 8 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

9

forestalling some inevitable judgment for

defendants, or delay just ‘for delay’s sake.’

The court does not agree with defendants’ that these

exhibits should be stricken. However, the court concludes that

the exhibits do not compel relief from judgment. There was no

discussion in the February 10, 2005 Order dismissing this action

as a sanction under Rule 41(b) that plaintiffs might not be able

to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact or demonstrate

the substantive merits of their various claims. There is no

question that the various motions for summary judgment were

voluminous and complicated. However, it was for that reason that

the briefing schedule was agreed to by stipulation and the

court’s calendar cleared to accommodate hearing those motions. 

The problem was that Mr. Holland, despite being warned, failed to

timely file his oppositions to those motions for summary judgment

and failed to timely request an extension of time to do so. The

court is not persuaded that extraordinary circumstances beyond

Mr. Holland’s control (the Rule 60(b)(6) standard) prevented him

from timely responding to the motions for summary judgment or

timely requesting an extension of time within which to do so. 

Mr. Holland’s history in this action described in February 10,

2005 Order amply demonstrates his unwillingness or inability to

timely comply with court orders and the rules of court. The

court’s Order dismissing this action under Rule 41(b) discussed

fully all of the factors required to be considered including, as

noted, the availability of lesser sanctions. As defendants

Case 1:01-cv-05437-AWI-SMS Document 408 Filed 05/17/05 Page 9 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

10

contend, plaintiffs’ remedy is now to the Ninth Circuit.

ACCORDINGLY:

1. Plaintiffs' Motion for Relief from Orders Denying

Request for Extension and Dismissing Case is denied.

2. Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Motion for

Relief from Orders is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 17, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:01-cv-05437-AWI-SMS Document 408 Filed 05/17/05 Page 10 of 10