Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-02477/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-02477-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 375
Nature of Suit: False Claims Act
Cause of Action: 31:3729 False Claims 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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CYNTHIA D. PERDUM,

Plaintiff,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-02477-HSG 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SET 

ASIDE ORDER DISMISSING THE

CASE WITH PREJUDICE AND 

REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

Re: Dkt. No. 66

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Cynthia Perdum’s motion to set aside entry 

of order of dismissal. The Court has considered the parties’ papers, relevant legal authority, and

the record in this case, and finds the matter suitable for disposition without oral argument. See

Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). The Court VACATES the hearing set for December 10, 2015, and hereby

DENIES Plaintiff’s motion.

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. violated the False Claims Act 

(“FCA”) by misappropriating funds provided by the United States under the Home Affordable 

Modification Program (“HAMP”), and by improperly denying her a loan modification for a 

mortgage under the HAMP program. Defendant moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, Dkt. 

No. 37. Plaintiff’s response was due by November 17, 2014, but she failed to file a response. 

Judge James Donato, to whom this case was previously assigned, granted the motion without 

prejudice on January 5, 2015, Dkt. No. 53. In his order, Judge Donato expressly stated that 

Plaintiff would be provided “one last opportunity” to file an amended complaint by January 12, 

2015 or else the case would be dismissed with prejudice. Id. at 4.

Rather than amend her complaint by the deadline ordered by Judge Donato, Plaintiff

Case 4:14-cv-02477-HSG Document 70 Filed 12/08/15 Page 1 of 4
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

instead filed a motion to dismiss her complaint without prejudice on January 12. Dkt. No. 54. In 

that motion, Plaintiff conceded that she could not plead a cause of action under the FCA, but 

sought dismissal without prejudice so that she could bring a claim under the Financial Institutions 

Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (“FIRREA”) at a future date. Id. Perdum represented 

that her failure to bring a FIRREA claim in the first place was caused by the ineffective assistance 

of her counsel. Id. at 4. The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion, concluding that granting Plaintiff’s 

motion would result in legal prejudice to Defendant. Dkt. No. 64. 

This is not a case where “a dispute remains unresolved” or where 

there is simply a “threat of future litigation,” as have been found 

insufficient grounds for legal prejudice in other cases. See, e.g., 

Westlands Water Dist., 100 F.3d at 96-97. To the contrary, the 

dispute between the parties has been resolved. Judge Donato 

considered Perdum’s FCA claim when deciding Wells Fargo’s 

motion to dismiss, provided leave to amend, and expressly stated 

that the action would be dismissed with prejudice absent the filing of 

an amended complaint by January 12, 2015. Dkt. No. 53. Perdum 

did not comply with Judge Donato’s order. In other words, dismissal 

without prejudice would not merely threaten Wells Fargo with 

future litigation: it would expose Wells Fargo to potential relitigation of issues already decided by this Court

Dkt. No. 64. The Court exercised its discretion to permit Plaintiff to file an amended complaint 

under FIRREA, if she could do so, by October 14, 2015. Dkt. No. 64. The Court warned that 

failure to adhere to this deadline would result in dismissal with prejudice. Dkt. No. 64. Plaintiff 

again missed the deadline and did not file an amended complaint. The Court dismissed the action 

with prejudice on October 27, 2015. Dkt. No 65. 

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to set aside the order to dismiss and to 

sanction her attorney. Dkt. No. 66. 

III. ANALYSIS

While Plaintiff does not identify the legal basis for her motion, the Court construes the 

motion as a request for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Rule 60(b) “provides 

for extraordinary relief and may be invoked only upon a showing of exceptional circumstances.” 

Harris v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, No. 14-CV-00581-JSC, 2014 WL 4129342, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 

Aug. 21, 2014). Rule 60(b)(1) allows a court “to relieve a party or its legal representative from a 

final judgment, order, or proceeding for . . . mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” 

Case 4:14-cv-02477-HSG Document 70 Filed 12/08/15 Page 2 of 4
3

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

The Court examines “four factors in determining whether a litigant has shown excusable neglect: 

the danger of prejudice to the non-movant, the length of the 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.” California Advocates for 

Nursing Home Reform, Inc. v. Chapman, No. 12-CV-06408-JST, 2014 WL 2450949, at *2 (N.D. 

Cal. June 2, 2014).

Plaintiff has failed to satisfy Rule 60(b)(1). Plaintiff contends that she is entitled to relief 

because of her attorney’s ineffectiveness, claiming that her attorney assured her he would timely 

file the amended complaint and that she should not be punished for her attorney’s inaction. 

However, “[n]either ignorance nor carelessness on the part of the litigant or his attorney provide 

grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)(1).” Engleson v. Burlington N.R. Co., 972 F.2d 1038, 1043 

(9th Cir. 1992); see also Casey v. Albertson’s Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1260 (9th Cir. 2004) (“As a 

general rule, parties are bound by the actions of their lawyers, and alleged attorney malpractice 

does not usually provide a basis to set aside a judgment.”). Plaintiff has been afforded two 

previous opportunities to timely file a complaint and she has missed both of them. Although 

Plaintiff blames her attorney, these facts do not constitute excusable neglect. That Plaintiff has 

been aware of her counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness at least since January 12, 2015 further weighs 

against a finding of excusable neglect. Dkt. No. 54 (acknowledging her counsel’s ineffectiveness) 

; see Dkt. No. 54-1 at 6 (“I have thoroughly disclosed my ineffectiveness as counsel to my client . 

. . [and] request that the Court grant relief to Perdum for my ineffective assistance as counsel.”). 

Whether or not Plaintiff might be able to bring a malpractice claim in another forum against her 

attorney, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not established exceptional circumstances warranting 

the relief requested. 

Additionally, Plaintiff has not shown that she can satisfy one of the other grounds for relief 

under Rule 60(b). There is no indication that there is new evidence in support of her claim, fraud 

by the other side, the judgment is void, or has otherwise been satisfied. Nor would be it 

appropriate to construe Plaintiff’s motion under Rule 60(b)(6) which “is to be utilized only where 

extraordinary circumstances prevented a party from taking timely action to prevent or correct an 

Case 4:14-cv-02477-HSG Document 70 Filed 12/08/15 Page 3 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

erroneous judgment” as no such circumstances have been alleged here. United States v. Alpine 

Land & Reservoir Co., 984 F.2d 1047, 1049 (9th Cir. 1993).

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED with prejudice.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

 

1

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied for failure to comply with the local rules. See Civ. L.R. 

7-8. 

12/8/2015

Case 4:14-cv-02477-HSG Document 70 Filed 12/08/15 Page 4 of 4