Case Name: Farramarz RAFAEL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sara HEZHGIAEIAN, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-12-17
Citations: 627 F. App'x 615
Docket Number: No. 12-55642
Parties: Farramarz RAFAEL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sara HEZHGIAEIAN, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: REINHARDT, NOONAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 627
Pages: 615–616

Head Matter:
Farramarz RAFAEL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sara HEZHGIAEIAN, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 12-55642.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 7, 2015.
Filed Dec. 17, 2015.
Jack Kenneth Conway, Esquire, Jack K. Conway Law Offices, San Marino, CA, Edward 0. Lear, Century Law Group LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Before: REINHARDT, NOONAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff Farramarz Rafael appeals the district court's denial- of his motion to vacate dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Applying the Pioneer-Briones factors, we find that the district court did not err in concluding that Rafael failed to show excusable neglect. Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd., 507 U.S. 380, 395, 113 S.Ct. 1489, 123 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993); Briones v. Riviera Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d 379, 381 (9th Cir.1997). As the district court noted, Rafael had multiple opportunities to avoid dismissal, or promptly seek to vacate the dismissal, and he failed to do so. Rafael failed to respond to the court's Order to Show Cause, and he waited nearly a year after dismissal before filing a motion to set aside the judgment. The district court also did not err in finding that counsel's proffered reasons for the delay — the press of business and a busy litigation schedule — were insufficient to excuse the neglect.
AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).