United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

YAYHA HIDAIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

DARIAN PORTER, et al.,

Defendants.

NO. C09-0512 TEH

ORDER DENYING RULE 60(b)

MOTION FOR RELIEF

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Yayha Hidais’s motion for relief,

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), from this Court’s February 24, 2009 order of

dismissal. Having reviewed Hidais’s moving papers, the Court finds oral argument to be

unnecessary. The Court now VACATES the April 5, 2010 hearing date and DENIES the

motion for the reasons discussed below.

BACKGROUND

Hidais, a resident in this district, filed this action against individuals alleged to be

residents of Memphis, Tennessee, based on a motor vehicle collision that occurred in

Memphis. The complaint asserted claims based solely on state law and alleged jurisdiction

based on diversity. Because it appeared from the face of the complaint that this Court lacked

personal jurisdiction over Defendants and that venue was not proper in this district, the Court

ordered Hidais to show cause, on February 6, 2009, as to why this case should not be

dismissed. The Court ordered Hidais to respond by February 20, 2009, but Hidais never filed

any response to the order to show cause.

The Court subsequently considered the allegations in the complaint and determined

that the case should be dismissed both for lack of personal jurisdiction and for improper

venue. Defendants were all alleged to reside in another state, where all of the events giving

Case 3:09-cv-00512-TEH Document 6 Filed 03/04/10 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

rise to this action allegedly occurred, and the complaint indicated no basis for jurisdiction

over Defendants in this state. Accordingly, the Court dismissed this case on February 24,

2009. The Court heard nothing from Hidais until February 24, 2010, when he filed this

motion for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).

DISCUSSION

Hidais seeks relief under Rule 60(b)(1), which allows relief based on “mistake,

inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” He contends that the motion is timely because

it was filed within a year of the order of dismissal. However, the one-year period is an

outside limitation under Rule 60(c)(1), which requires that a Rule 60(b)(1) motion be brought

“within a reasonable time – and . . . no more than a year after the entry” of the challenged

order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1) (emphasis added). Indeed, a court may deny a Rule 60(b)(1)

motion, even if it was filed within the one-year period, if the moving party “was guilty of

laches or unreasonable delay.” Meadows v. Dominican Republic, 817 F.2d 517, 520-21 (9th

Cir. 1987). Whether a motion is brought within a reasonable time “depends upon the facts of

each case, taking into consideration the interest in finality, the reason for delay, the practical

ability of the litigant to learn earlier of the grounds relied upon, and prejudice to other

parties.” Ashford v. Steuart, 657 F.2d 1053, 1055 (9th Cir. 1981).

In this case, Hidais states that:

After receiving the [February 6, 2009] order of the Court [to

show cause], Plaintiff’s attorney undertook to investigate the

issues the Court raise[d] as to venue and jurisdiction, and to

analyze the consequences of any potential corrections thereof. 

As stated herein above, while so doing, Plaintiff’s attorney

arranged, within his office, to calendar the date of the response;

that calendaring effort was improperly done, and, as a result, the

response date was missed and the dismissal order issued.

Mot. at 3-4. While a calendaring error might, in some circumstances, constitute a legitimate

basis for relief under Rule 60(b)(1), waiting one year to seek such relief is simply

unreasonable in this case. Hidais’s counsel admits that he received the Court’s order to show

cause, which gave counsel two weeks to prepare a response. Even if counsel’s office

Case 3:09-cv-00512-TEH Document 6 Filed 03/04/10 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Although this did not bear on the Court’s analysis, the Court also notes that Hidais’s

proposed amendment – to add as a defendant an insurance carrier that is resident “within the

present jurisdiction,” Mot. at 2 – would eliminate diversity of citizenship and, therefore,

Hidais’s asserted basis for subject matter jurisdiction.

3

miscalendared the response deadline, it is inexplicable that counsel, who supposedly was

researching the issues in question, would not have double-checked the deadline by reference

to the order. It is simply unfathomable – and certainly unreasonable – that an attorney would

conduct research in response to a court’s order to show cause and then let an entire year pass

before considering that perhaps he had missed the response deadline due to a calendaring

error. This is especially true where, as here, the Court issued an order dismissing the case

shortly after the response deadline had passed. Accordingly, with good cause appearing, the

Court DENIES as untimely Hidais’s motion to set aside the February 24, 2009 order of

dismissal.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 03/04/10 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:09-cv-00512-TEH Document 6 Filed 03/04/10 Page 3 of 3