Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-00228/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-00228-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting 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

JUDE DARRIN, individually, and on 

behalf of the general public,

Plaintiff,

v.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., EXPERIAN 

INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., 

EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES 

LLC., & TRANS UNION LLC.,

Defendants.

No. 2:12-cv-00228-MCE-KJN

ORDER

Plaintiff Jude Darrin (“Plaintiff”) moves to set aside the June 17, 2014 Order

entering judgment against him and in favor of Defendants Trans Union, LLC, Experian 

Information Solutions, Inc., and Equifax Information Services, LLC (“collectively 

“Defendants”) on various grounds, including mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect 

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b). Because this Court finds that Plaintiff 

is indeed entitled to relief based on a Rule 60(b) excusable argument alone, it will not 

address Plaintiff’s remaining arguments.

On May 13, 2014, this Court signed a Memorandum and Order granting Plaintiff 

leave to file an amended complaint “within 20 days from the date of the date of [the] 

Memorandum and Order.” ECF No. 95, 14:25-15:2. The Order was docketed and filed 

Case 2:12-cv-00228-MCE-KJN Document 107 Filed 07/24/14 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

the following day, May 14, 2014. Plaintiff thereafter filed his Third Amended Complaint 

on June 3, 2014, exactly 20 days after the aforementioned Memorandum and Order was 

filed but 21 days after it was signed. 

On June 13, 2014, defense counsel submitted an administrative request that the 

action be dismisssed because the Third Amended Complaint should have been filed 

within 20 days following the date the Memorandum and Order was signed, or by June 2, 

2014, one day before the Third Amended Complaint was in fact submitted. On June 16, 

2014, by way of Minute Order, this court dismissed the action on grounds the Third 

Amended Complaint was untimely filed (ECF No. 99). Judgment was entered 

accordingly the following day, June 17, 2014, and, as indicated above, Plaintiff now 

seeks to set aside that judgment.

According to Plaintiff’s counsel, Linda D. Deos, she in good faith believed that the 

“date of the Order” language contained in the Court’s Memorandum and Order filed 

May 14, 2014 referred to the filed date rather than the date of signature. In addition, 

Plaintiff’s counsel points to Ninth Circuit authority finding that the date of entry, rather 

than the date an order is signed, is normally the critical date within which to assess 

timeliness. See, e.g., Calhoun v. United States, 647 F.2d 6, 8 (9th Cir. 1981). The 

bottom line is that it was not patently unreasonable for Plaintiff’s counsel to construe the 

Memorandum and Order in the way she did.

In assessing whether excusable neglect is present, the United States Supreme 

Court recognizes that “the determination is at bottom an equitable one, taking account of 

all relevant circumstances surrounding the party’s omission,” including the danger of 

prejudice to the [nonmoving party], 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.” Pioneer 

Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993).

These so-called Pioneer factors weigh in favor of finding excusable neglect under 

the circumstances confronted herein. Given the fact that the delay in filing the Complaint 

Case 2:12-cv-00228-MCE-KJN Document 107 Filed 07/24/14 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

3

was only some 18 hours, any claim of prejudice here is far-fetched. Moreover, as 

indicated above, Plaintiff counsel’s interpretation of the Court’s deadline was not per se 

unreasonable. Nor is there any evidence of bad faith. Consequently, the Court finds 

that Plaintiff’s excusable neglect argument is well-taken, and that the judgment against 

Plaintiff should therefore be set aside.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Judgment (ECF No. 101) is therefore GRANTED.1 

Plaintiff is nonetheless admonished to scrupulously adhere to this Court’s orders in the 

future as the case progresses, and to err on the side of caution should any question 

arise with respect to deadlines or any other requirement imposed by the Court during the 

continued pendency of this litigation.

The Clerk of Court is directed to reactivate this matter as an open file. Plaintiff’s 

Third Amended Complaint is deemed filed as of June 3, 2014. Defendants shall file a 

responsive pleading to said Third Amended Complaint not later than twenty (20) days 

following the date this Order is electronically filed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 22, 2014

 1 Because oral argument was not of material assistance, the Court ordered this matter submitted 

on the briefing. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 230(g).

Case 2:12-cv-00228-MCE-KJN Document 107 Filed 07/24/14 Page 3 of 3