Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02785/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02785-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN B. WALLACE,

Plaintiff,

v.

BUSCH ENTERTAINMENT CORP., et

al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 09-cv-2785-L(RBB)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

[DOC. 66]

On December 27, 2012, Plaintiff John B. Wallace, a licensed attorney proceeding pro se,

filed this motion seeking a order from the Court (1) relieving Plaintiff from the judgment of

dismissal, (2) vacating judgment, and (3) setting a trial. Plaintiff brings this motion in response

to the dismissal of this action for want of prosecution under Civil Local Rule 41.1 on October

29, 2012. The Court issued a Notice of Hearing for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution,

following a six-month period of no docket activity in this action. Consequently, on November

11, 2012, the Court entered judgment and dismissal without prejudice. Defendant Seaworld

Parks & Entertainment, LLC opposes the motion.

//

//

09cv2785

Case 3:09-cv-02785-L-RBB Document 74 Filed 01/28/13 Page 1 of 5
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

The Court found this motion suitable for determination on the papers submitted and

without oral argument. See Civ. L.R. 7.1(d.1). (Doc. 68.) For the following reasons, the Court

DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. (Doc. 66.)

I. ANALYSIS

Once judgment has been entered, reconsideration may be sought by filing a motion under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) (motion for relief from judgment). See Hinton v. Pac.

Enter., 5 F.3d 391, 395 (9th Cir. 1993). Rule 60(b) provides for extraordinary relief and may be

invoked only upon a showing of exceptional circumstances. Engleson v. Burlington N.R. Co.,

972 F.2d 1038, 1044 (9th Cir.1994) (citing Ben Sager Chem. Int’l v. E. Targosz & Co., 560 F.2d

805, 809 (7th Cir. 1977)). Under Rule 60(b), the court may grant reconsideration based on: (1)

mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by

due diligence could not have been discovered before the court’s decision; (3) fraud by the

adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; or (6) any other

reason justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

The gist of Plaintiff’s arguments supporting his motion boil down to: (1) Plaintiff did not

receive the Notice of Hearing for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, and (2) dismissal is too

severe of a sanction. Defendant responds by arguing, among other things, that Plaintiff fails to

meet his burden for relief under Rule 60(b), and Plaintiff’s motion is moot because this action

was properly dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute under Civil Local Rule 41.1. The

Court agrees with Defendant.

A. Plaintiff’s Dismissal Is Not a Sanction.

Civil Local Rule 41.1 states that

Actions or proceedings which have been pending in this court for more

than six months, without any proceeding or discovery having been

taken therein during such period, may, after notice, be dismissed by the

court for want of prosecution, at the calling of a calendar prepared for

that purpose by the clerk. Such dismissal must be without prejudice,

unless otherwise ordered.

Civil Local Rule 83.1 provides the court with a vehicle to sanction attorneys or parties, which

09cv2785

2

Case 3:09-cv-02785-L-RBB Document 74 Filed 01/28/13 Page 2 of 5
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

includes the power to sanction by dismissing any action. Civ. L.R. 83.1(a). When the Court

issued the Notice of Hearing for Want of Prosecution, it invoked Rule 41.1 and not Rule 83.1. 

Consequently, the dismissal and entry of judgment were not sanctions against Plaintiff. 

Therefore, considering the severity of any sanction is not relevant because there was none.

On an issue related to Rule 41.1, Plaintiff contends that filing a Notice of Change of

Address (Doc. 59) should be remove this action from the reach of Rule 41.1. In other words,

filing the Notice of Change of Address is a proceeding under Rule 41.1. However, Plaintiff is

wrong. Plaintiff’s notice is not a proceeding. Black’s Law Dictionary defines “proceeding” as

“[t]he regular and orderly progression of a lawsuit, including all acts and events between the

time of commencement and the entry of judgment.” Plaintiff’s notice did not in any way

progress this action. Additionally, under the other prong of Rule 41.1—discovery—which may

remove the action from the scope of Rule 41.1, Plaintiff fails to show there was any discovery

during the six months leading up to the date when the Notice of Hearing was issued.

B. Plaintiff Fails to Justify Relief Under Rule 60(b).

Moving on, Plaintiff does not coherently articulate an argument that would entitle him to

relief under Rule 60(b). His explanation justifying relief under Rule 60(b) is that “Plaintiff was

surprised by the dismissal because he did not receive this Court’s Notice of the Hearing re

Dismissal.” (Pl.’s Mot. 8:1–2.) Plaintiff provides a document-by-document explanation that

each exhibit attached to Defendant’s opposition brief does not show service because these

documents—several of which are documents issued by the Court—lack proofs of service. But

all that effort is for naught.

On September 17, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Change of Address. (Doc. 59.) That

notice designated Plaintiff’s new address as follows: c/o Wallace & Madden, 444 South Flower

Street, 30th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90071. The previous address had been c/o Rosen &

Associates, P.C., 444 South Flower Street, Suite 602, Los Angeles, California 90071. The Court

was fully aware of the new address when issuing the Notice of Hearing, and acted accordingly. 

When examining the receipt for the Notice of Hearing, it states that the notice was “served

09cv2785

3

Case 3:09-cv-02785-L-RBB Document 74 Filed 01/28/13 Page 3 of 5
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

conventionally” to John B Wallace, c/o Wallace & Madden, 444 South Flower Street, 30th

Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071. (Doc. 60; see also Bloom Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. 6.) There is no doubt

that the Notice of Hearing was sent to the address most recently designated by Plaintiff, and

since the notice was not returned, there is a presumption that the notice was received. It is not 1

the Court’s duty to ensure that the mailing address of an attorney or party is correct; that is the

attorney’s or party’s responsibility. Thus, for all intents and purposes, Plaintiff received the

Notice of Hearing for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution.

Plaintiff does not give any further explanation related to Rule 60(b). Accordingly, the

Court finds that Plaintiff fails to show any exceptional circumstances to justify granting him

relief under Rule 60(b). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); Engleson, 972 F.2d at 1044. 

II. CONCLUSION & ORDER

Because Plaintiff fails to demonstrate entitlement to reconsideration, the Court DENIES

his motion for reconsideration in its entirety. (Doc. 66.) The Court also DENIES AS MOOT

Plaintiff’s request to set a trial date. A trial date is only set for a civil case during the Final

Pretrial Conference, which has not occurred in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 25, 2013

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. RUBEN B. BROOKS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

 Plaintiff included a self-addressed, stamped envelope in the package of materials 1

accompanying his reply brief. Curiously, the address on that envelope is: John Wallace, c/o

Rosen & Associates, P.C., 444 S. Flower Street, Suite 3010, Los Angeles, CA 90071. To the

Court’s knowledge, this address has never shown up in any of Plaintiff’s filings in this action. A

copy of that envelope is attached to this order.

09cv2785

4

Case 3:09-cv-02785-L-RBB Document 74 Filed 01/28/13 Page 4 of 5
John Wallace 

444 S. Flower Street 

Suite 3010 

Los Angeles l CA 90071 

John Wallace 

c/o Rosen & Associates, P.C. 

444 S. Flower Street 

Suite 3010 

Los Angeles, CA 90071