Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02050/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02050-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1444 Petition for Removal- Foreclosure

---

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 1

Defendant Aegis Corporation has not yet appeared.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Dena Pope, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Aegis Wholesale Corp.; U.S. Bank NA,

solely as trustee for the Certificate Holders

of Maiden Lane Trust, Asset-Backed

Securities 1, Series 2007; Nationstar

Mortgage LLC; BlackRock Financial

Management Inc.; Federal Reserve Bank

of New York, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 11-02050-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it plaintiff's motion to vacate order of dismissal and permit filing

of plaintiff's response to motion to dismiss (doc. 8), defendants U.S. Bank, Nationstar

Mortgage, BlackRock Financial Management, and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York's

("defendants") response (doc. 9), and plaintiff's reply (doc. 13).1

Plaintiff's complaint challenges defendants' authority to proceed with a trustee's sale

on her property. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the action should be

Case 2:11-cv-02050-FJM Document 15 Filed 01/17/12 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 -

dismissed both because it violated Rule 8(a), Fed. R. Civ. P. and because it failed to state a

claim under Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P. Plaintiff's response was due on November 14,

2011, but plaintiff failed to respond. On November 17, 2011 we summarily granted

defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to LRCiv 7.2(i) (doc. 6). We also noted that the

forty-five page complaint violated Rule 8(a), Fed. R. Civ. P. In accordance with our order,

the Clerk entered judgment (doc. 7). 

Plaintiff moves that our order of dismissal and the Clerk's judgment be vacated, and

asks to file her response to the motion to dismiss. Plaintiff states that on November 14, 2011

(the date the response was due), she obtained an oral stipulation from defendants' counsel

that extended the time to file a response until November 28, 2011. However, due to staff

turnover in plaintiff's counsel's office, the filing of the stipulation "fell through the cracks."

Mot. to Vacate at 2. Defendants acknowledge agreeing to the extension of time. However,

they oppose the motion to vacate, stating that plaintiff has not established any ground for

relief set forth in Rule 60, Fed. R. Civ. P. for setting aside a judgment. Defendants argue that

it was plaintiff's responsibility to inform the court of the stipulated extension of time, and

failure to do so does not justify relief under this rule. Even if we set aside the judgment,

defendants argue that plaintiff should not be permitted to file her proposed response because

we already determined that the complaint violates Rule 8(a), Fed. R. Civ. P. and should at

least be dismissed on that basis.

Rule 60(b), Fed. R. Civ. P. permits us to set aside a final judgment or order for reasons

including "mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect." Id. 60(b)(1). Excusable

neglect encompasses negligence by lawyers. Bateman v. U.S. Postal Serv., 231 F.3d 1220,

1223 (9th Cir. 2000). To determine whether inadvertence constitutes excusable neglect, we

apply the following factors: "(1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length

of the delay and its potential impact on the proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4)

whether the movant acted in good faith." Id. at 1223-24. Although plaintiff does not discuss

these factors, she provides relevant evidence. She notes that she obtained a stipulation from

defendants to extend her response time. Her counsel dictated a stipulation to counsel's staff,

Case 2:11-cv-02050-FJM Document 15 Filed 01/17/12 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 -

but this was not electronically filed due to staff turnover. We note the length of delay here

is minimal. Plaintiff filed the instant motion eleven days after the entry of judgment, and this

action was at its infancy when it was dismissed: no scheduling order had even been set.

Defendants have not argued that are prejudiced by the filing of this motion. The reason for

plaintiff's failure to respond is not strong. Plaintiff's counsel should have more closely

monitored his staff to ensure that the stipulation was filed, particularly since it was obtained

the same day his client's response to the motion to dismiss was due. But here, as in Bateman,

"there is no evidence that he acted with anything less than good faith." Id. at 1225.

Plaintiff's counsel sought and secured a stipulated extension of time from defendants'

counsel. His errors in filing the stipulation "resulted from negligence and carelessness, not

from deviousness or willfulness." Id. We conclude that there is excusable neglect justifying

plaintiff's relief from judgment under Rule 60(b), Fed. R. Civ. P. 

Our order of dismissal stated that plaintiff's complaint as filed violates Rule 8(a), Fed.

R. Civ. P. Plaintiff's proposed response to the motion to dismiss does not alter this

assessment. Accordingly, it would be futile to permit plaintiff to file her response. We think

the better course of action is to provide plaintiff with the opportunity to file an amended

complaint in compliance with Rule 8(a). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN

PART plaintiff's motion to vacate judgment and permit filing of plaintiff's response to the

motion to dismiss (doc. 8). 

IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiff's motion to permit filing of her response to

the motion to dismiss.

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING plaintiff's motion to vacate judgment (doc. 8). The

Clerk's judgment (doc. 7) is VACATED. Our November 17, 2011 order dismissing this

action (doc. 6) is AMENDED to reflect that the action is dismissed without prejudice.

Plaintiff shall have up to and including thirty (30) days from the date this order is

entered to file an amended complaint that complies with Rule 8(a), Fed. R. Civ. P. If she

Case 2:11-cv-02050-FJM Document 15 Filed 01/17/12 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 -

fails to timely file an amended complaint, the Clerk shall enter judgment of dismissal. 

DATED this 17th day of January, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-02050-FJM Document 15 Filed 01/17/12 Page 4 of 4