Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02756/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02756-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEINYATEY D. CHAMBERS, No. 2:09-cv-02756-MCE-DAD

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

MARVAL & ASSOCIATES,

Defendant.

----oo0oo----

Through the present action, Plaintiff seeks damages from

Defendant Marval & Associates for alleged violations of the Fair

Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and the Rosenthal Fair

Debt Collection Practices Act (“RFDCPA”). After Defendant was

served with the Summons and Complaint and failed to respond,

Defendant asked the Court to enter Defendant’s default. Default

against Marval & Associates was entered on March 17, 2010. 

Plaintiff thereafter filed a Motion for Default Judgment on

May 14, 2010, and set a hearing on that Motion for June 25, 2010

(Docket No. 8).

Case 2:09-cv-02756-MCE -DAD Document 19 Filed 07/23/10 Page 1 of 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

2

Rather than proceeding forward on his request for default

judgment, however, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a Notice of

Voluntary Dismissal on June 1, 2010 (Docket No. 9), thereby

terminating this litigation.

Plaintiff now seeks to withdraw that Dismissal, and

reinstate the case, on grounds that counsel filed that dismissal

in error. According to the Declaration of Mahadhi Corzano, an

associate in Plaintiff’s counsel’s office inadvertently filed a

Notice of Voluntary Dismissal in this case, rather than a

different matter which was supposed to have been so dismissed. 

Counsel’s mistake in this regard is apparent given the fact that

his previous filing in this matter had been a request to reduce

Defendant’s default to judgment, an action wholly inconsistent

with his subsequent voluntary dismissal.

Plaintiff’s Motion is brought pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 60(b), which provides that a Court may relieve a

party or his representative from an order or judgment on various

grounds, including said party’s “mistake, inadvertence, surprise

or excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). Motions for

relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) are addressed to the

sound discretion of the district court. Casey v. Albertson’s

Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1257 (9th Cir. 2004).

This matter appears to be a classic example of the kind of

mistake Rule 60(b) was intended to rectify. Moreover, no

opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion has been submitted.

///

///

///

Case 2:09-cv-02756-MCE -DAD Document 19 Filed 07/23/10 Page 2 of 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

 Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, 1

the Court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal.

Local Rule 230(g).

3

Given that non-opposition, and good cause having been shown,

Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Order of Dismissal (Docket

No. 13) is hereby GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is hereby 1

instructed to reinstate this matter as an active case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 23, 2010

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-02756-MCE -DAD Document 19 Filed 07/23/10 Page 3 of 3