Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02100/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02100-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Sex)

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOY MARIE OREY, 

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN POTTER, Postmaster

General, et al.,

Defendants. 

 CIV-S-04-2100 DFL CMK

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION

AND ORDER

On October 6, 2004, plaintiff Joy Marie Orey, a U.S. Postal

Service employee, filed this suit against defendants, alleging

workplace sexual harassment. Orey took no further action in the

case and did not respond to a February 11, 2005 order to show

cause. On March 18, 2005, the case was dismissed for failure to

prosecute. Orey moves to set aside the dismissal under Fed. R.

Civ. P. 60(b) and reinstate her case. The court set the matter

for oral argument, but neither Orey nor counsel appeared.

Case 2:04-cv-02100-DFL-CMK Document 6 Filed 08/18/05 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

2

“A district court’s decision under Rule 60(b) not to

reinstate a case dismissed for want of prosecution is discretion

piled on discretion.” Tango Music, LLC v. DeadQuick Music, Inc.,

348 F.3d 244, 248 (7th Cir. 2003) (quotations omitted); Pena v.

Seguros La Comercial, S.A., 770 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1985). 

While Rule 60 relief is to be liberally applied and default

judgments are generally disfavored, Pena, 770 F.2d at 814, “a

motion under [Rule 60(b)] ... must be clearly substantiated by

adequate proof” demonstrating that relief is warranted. Thomas

v. Colo. Trust Deed Funds, Inc., 366 F.2d 136, 139 (10th Cir.

1966). 

In order to vacate a final order under Rule 60(b)(1), the

moving party must show that the order was based on “mistake,

inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

60(b)(1). Whether the neglect is excusable is an equitable

determination based on four factors: (1) potential for prejudice

to the opposing party, (2) “the length of the delay and its

impact on judicial proceedings,” (3) “the reason for the delay,”

and (4) “whether the movant acted in good faith.” Pioneer Inv.

Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395,

113 S.Ct. 1489 (1993); see Bateman v. United States Postal Serv.,

231 F.3d 1220, 1223-24 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding that the Pioneer

factors apply to Rule 60(b)(1) motions). 

Orey’s failure to present evidence to satisfy the third

factor justifies denial of Rule 60(b)(1) relief in this case. 

Orey failed to serve process on the defendants within the 120-day

Case 2:04-cv-02100-DFL-CMK Document 6 Filed 08/18/05 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

 The court’s order setting status required Orey to file a 1

proof of service with the court. Orey did not do so. Moreover,

counsel’s declaration states that he is attaching a proof of

service to the declaration; however, none was attached.

3

time limit of Rule 4(m). In her moving papers, Orey claims that

she served process on one defendant on December 29, 2005, but no

proof of service or other evidence of service has been filed with

the court. Given the lack of evidence and the failure to appear 1

at the oral hearing, the court rejects the claim that one

defendant was timely served and concludes that none of the

defendants was served within the 120 day period.

Absent a “persuasive justification,” an attorney’s failure

to follow a clear legal rule is not “excusable neglect” under the

Pioneer standard. Speiser, Krause & Madole P.C. v. Ortiz, 271

F.3d 884, 886 (9th Cir. 2001) (denying Rule 60(b)(1) relief

because attorney did not offer “persuasive justification” for

failing to follow Rule 81(c)); Kyle v. Campbell Soup Co., 28 F.3d

928, 931-32 (9th Cir. 1994) (denying Rule 60(b)(1) relief where

“counsel has not presented a persuasive justification for his

misconstruction of nonambiguous rules”). 

Orey does not offer a persuasive justification for her

failure to serve process on any defendant within the Rule 4(m)

120-day time limit. Without mentioning “excusable neglect,”

Pioneer, or any leading cases, Orey instead offers an explanation

for her failure to respond to the court’s February 11th order to

show cause. Orey’s attorney avers that because of a mail problem

involving a substitute mailman, he did not receive the order to

Case 2:04-cv-02100-DFL-CMK Document 6 Filed 08/18/05 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

4

show cause. (Hawes Decl. at 1-2.) Even if true, this

explanation is not “persuasive justification” for plaintiff’s

failure to serve process on any defendants within 120 days of the

filing the complaint. 

Because plaintiff has not carried her burden of

demonstrating that her violation of the service rule was

excusable, plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 8/18/2005

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02100-DFL-CMK Document 6 Filed 08/18/05 Page 4 of 4