Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01978/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01978-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 445
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Employment
Cause of Action: 29:0794 Job Discrimination (Handicap)

---

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

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Nancy K. Faron, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

City of Phoenix, a Municipal Corporation,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-1978-PHX-LOA

ORDER

This case arises on Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion to Set Aside Order and

Judgment of Dismissal, which includes as attachments Plaintiff’s Consent To Exercise

Jurisdiction By United States Magistrate Judge, counsel’s Affidavit and Supplemental

Statement, indicating express consent to magistrate-judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(c), all filed on December 23, 2008. (docket # 11) The undersigned Magistrate Judge

has jurisdiction to rule upon the subject Motion.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, represented by counsel, commenced this action on October 28, 2008.

(docket # 1) On October 30, 2008 the Court issued a Notice of Assignment, ordering

Plaintiff to file on or before November 12, 2008 her written election either consenting to

magistrate-judge jurisdiction or electing to proceed before a United States District Judge.

(docket # 6) Plaintiff did not file her election by the November 12, 2008 deadline.

Accordingly, on November 21, 2008, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause in writing on

Case 2:08-cv-01978-SRB Document 12 Filed 12/29/08 Page 1 of 4
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

27

28

- 2 -

or before December 4, 2008 why the Court should not impose sanctions based on her failure

to comply with Court orders. (docket # 8) Plaintiff neither responded to the order to show

cause nor otherwise contacted the Court by the December 4, 2008 deadline. On December

19, 2008, the Honorable Neil V. Wake, United States District Judge, dismissed Plaintiff’s

lawsuit without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and

Rule 83(f)(1) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. (docket # 9) Judgment was entered by

the Clerk on December 19, 2008. (docket # 10) 

Four days later, on December 23, 2008, Plaintiff’s counsel filed his Ex Parte

Motion to Set Aside Order and Judgment of Dismissal, essentially indicating that he

mistakenly believed that his former secretary had followed his instructions by correctly filing

Plaintiff’s Consent To Exercise Jurisdiction By United States Magistrate Judge only to learn

his “new secretary discovered the original form, which had not been mailed to the court.”

(docket # 11-3 at 1) “Plaintiff requests that the court set aside the entry of judgment and

reinstate Plaintiff’s Complaint based upon Rule 60b, Fed. R. Civ. P. because the oversight

in this case was the result of excusable neglect by Plaintiff’s counsel.” (docket # 11 at 2)

Counsel’s averments, signed under penalty of perjury, detail his preparation and trip to New

Orleans “to participate in Katrina recovery work” in November, preparation for a two-day

trial in late November and recent health issues and serious diagnostic tests in early December

“caused [counsel] to overlook the fact that [he] never received a notice from the court that

the election form was received.” (docket # 11-2 at 3) 

Plaintiff’s counsel cites only Rule 60(b), Fed.R.Civ.P., but the Motion is clear

he relies on Rule 60(b)(1) for the relief he seeks. Counsel, however, provides no case law for

authority except Ford v. Hubbard, 330 F.3d 1086 (9th Cir. 2002), which was vacated by the

Supreme Court in Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225 (2004).

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) provides “on motion and upon such

terms as are just, the court may relieve a party . . . from a final judgment [for] . . . mistake,

inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect . . . .” Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1). “Rule 60(b)(1)

Case 2:08-cv-01978-SRB Document 12 Filed 12/29/08 Page 2 of 4
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

27

28

- 3 -

guides the balance between the overriding judicial goal of deciding cases correctly, on the

basis of their legal and factual merits, with the interest of both litigants and the courts in the

finality of judgments.” TCI Group Life Ins. Plan v. Knoebber, 244 F.3d 691, 695 (9th Cir.

2000), overruled on other grounds, Egelhoff v. Egelhoff ex. rel. Breiner, 532 U.S. 141 (2001)

. Since Rule 60(b) is remedial in nature, it must be liberally applied. Direct Mail Specialists,

Inc. v. Eclat Computerized Technologies, Inc., 840 F.2d 685, 690 (9th Cir. 1988) (Schwab

v. Bullock’s Inc., 508 F.2d 353, 355 (9th Cir. 1974)). Under the circumstances here, Plaintiff

has the burden to establish the grounds for the court to set aside or modify its judgment.

Martinelli v. Valley Bank of Nevada (In re Martinelli), 96 B.R. 1011, 1013 (9th Cir. BAP

1988)

The United States Supreme Court has held that determining whether neglect

is “excusable” involves an equitable analysis that considers all relevant circumstances

surrounding the party’s omission, including the danger of prejudice to the debtor, the length

of delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, the reason for the delay, including

whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant, and whether the movant acted

in good faith. Pioneer Inv. Svcs. Co. v. Brunswick Assoc. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395

(1993); Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 746 (9th Cir. 2008). 

The Ninth Circuit has adopted a forgiving approach to excusable neglect,

accepting even “weak” reasons if they reveal mere “negligence and carelessness,

not...deviousness or willfulness.” Bateman v. United States Postal Serv., 231 F.3d 1220,

1225 (9th Cir. 2000). In Bateman, an attorney was excused from his failure to timely file a

pleading because he had to leave the country on fairly short notice and, upon his return,

suffered from jet lag and took some time to sort through his mail. Although this was a

“weak” reason, it was enough to warrant relief under Rule 60(b)(1).

The determination of excusable neglect is left to the sound discretion of the

district court. United States v. Russell, 578 F.2d 806, 807 (9th Cir. 1978) (per curiam).

ANALYSIS

Case 2:08-cv-01978-SRB Document 12 Filed 12/29/08 Page 3 of 4
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

27

28

- 4 -

Applying the Pioneer analysis, the Court concludes that the dismissal order

should be set aside on the basis of excusable neglect. First, Plaintiff herself played no role

her attorney’s omissions to comply with prior court orders. Second, there is no danger of

prejudice to Defendant as it appears Defendant has not yet been served with process, much

less than having incurred any attorney’s fees due to Plaintiff’s attorney’s omissions. Third,

the delay in processing this case due to counsel’s omissions was de minimis. Plaintiff’s

attorney promptly prepared and filed the subject Motion within days of the dismissal order.

While Plaintiff’s attorney’s must accept, and does, some responsibility for his secretary’s

omission, counsel justifiably relied upon his former secretary to do her job. Finally, there is

no suggestion that counsel’s failure to comply with court orders was intentional or motivated

by bad faith. The fair and equitable ruling is to grant the subject Motion.

Counsel is forewarned that timely compliance with court orders is not optional

or discretionary. Moreover, the Court does not share counsel’s view that its efforts to comply

with Rule 1 and the mandate of the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. §471 et seq.,

as simply an “administrative matter.” (docket # 11-2 at 3)

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Ex Parte Motion to Set Aside Order and Judgment of

Dismissal, docket # 11, is GRANTED. There Clerk is hereby directed to set aside the

Judgment and reinstate this case.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s counsel shall serve process on

all Defendants within 120 days of the filing of the Complaint. Rule 4(m).

DATED this 24th day of December, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-01978-SRB Document 12 Filed 12/29/08 Page 4 of 4