govinfo:USCOURTS-casd-3_25-cv-00249-1

-1- 
25-cv-00249-BEN-LR 
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 
 
ROBERT EVANS, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
COUNTY OF IMPERIAL, THE STATE 
OF CALIFORNIA, and DOES 1-50, 
Defendant. 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 

 
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 
MOTION TO SET ASIDE 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to set aside judgment pursuant to Federal 
Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). (ECF No. 6.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court 
GRANTS the motion. 
BACKGROUND 
Plaintiff Robert Evans, represented by counsel James Arrasmith, initiated this 
action in California state court on December 3, 2024, naming the State of California and 
the County of Imperial as defendants. On February 3, 2025, the State of California, 
represented by Attorney General Robert Bonta, filed its answer in state court. The 
following day, the County of Imperial, represented by Dick Semerdjian, Esq., and Chad 
Thurstan, Esq., removed Plaintiff’s claims against it to this Court. 
Case 3:25-cv-00249-TWR-LR Document 11 Filed 02/05/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 5
 
-2- 
25-cv-00249-BEN-LR 
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 
On February 10, 2025, the County filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 3.) 
Plaintiff filed no opposition. On March 28, 2025, the Court granted the motion and 
dismissed the Complaint based on Plaintiff’s waiver under Local Rule 7.1(f)(2)(b). On 
May 15, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant motion alleging that he never saw the motion to 
dismiss filed by the County of Imperial because his email was not functioning properly. 
(ECF. No. 6.) 
 LEGAL STANDARD 
“Rule 60(b) allows for relief from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for any of 
six reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly 
discovered evidence that could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial; 
(3) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment 
has been satisfied; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.” Trendsettah USA, Inc. v. 
Swisher Int’l, Inc., 31 F.4th 1124, 1136 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting Hanson v. Shubert, 968 
F.3d 1014, 1017 n.1 (9th Cir. 2020) (citation modified)). 
 The moving party “bears the burden of proving the existence of a justification for 
Rule 60(b) relief. Cassidy v. Tenorio, 856 F.2d 1412, 1415 (9th Cir. 1988). “Motions for 
relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) are addressed to the sound discretion of the 
district court.” Casey v. Albertson’s, Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1257 (9th Cir. 2004). 
/// 
/// 
/// 
/// 
/// 
/// 
Case 3:25-cv-00249-TWR-LR Document 11 Filed 02/05/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 5
 
-3- 
25-cv-00249-BEN-LR 
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 
DISCUSSION 
Excusable Neglect Under Rule 60(b)(1) 
“[A]t least for purposes of Rule 60(b), ‘excusable neglect’ is understood to 
encompass situations in which the failure to comply with a filing deadline is attributable 
to negligence.” Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 
394 (1993).1 The determination of whether a party has demonstrated excusable neglect 
“is at bottom an equitable one, taking account of all relevant circumstances surrounding 
the party’s omission.” Briones v. Riviera Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d 379, 381–82 (9th 
Cir. 1997) (quoting Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 395). Courts must consider four factors: (1) the 
danger of prejudice to the non-movant; (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact 
on judicial proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the 
reasonable control of the movant; and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith. 
Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 395; see also Briones, 116 F.3d at 381. 
Applying the Pioneer factors, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s failure to comply with 
the filing deadlines constituted excusable neglect meriting relief. Here, Plaintiff moved 
for Rule 60 relief within the required time frame of a year. Furthermore, this case is still 
in the early stages, and the Defendants will not suffer legally significant prejudice that 
impacts the judicial proceedings. Even though Plaintiffs’ email issues are his own 
 
1 Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 388 (citing Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 791 
(1983)) “[T]he Rule grants reprieve to out-of-time filings that were delayed by ‘neglect’ 
[is]. . . “‘to leave undone or unattended to esp[ecially] through carelessness.’” The Court 
stated that “Congress plainly contemplated that the courts would be permitted, where 
appropriate, to accept late filings caused by inadvertence, mistake, or carelessness, as 
well as by intervening circumstances beyond the party’s control.” Id. 
 
Case 3:25-cv-00249-TWR-LR Document 11 Filed 02/05/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 5
 
-4- 
25-cv-00249-BEN-LR 
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 
making, the Supreme Court has made clear that “[t]he ‘excusable neglect’ standard for 
allowing late filings is also used elsewhere in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” 
Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 392. Further, the Court stated that “[t]he same is true of Rule 
60(b)(1), which permits courts to reopen judgments for reasons of ‘mistake, inadvertence, 
surprise, or excusable neglect,’ but only on motion made within one year of the 
judgment. Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 393. 
Most importantly, the court stated that “we give little weight to the fact that 
counsel was experiencing upheaval in his law practice at the time of the bar date.” 
Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 398. Moreover, there is no indication that Plaintiff filed this Motion 
in bad faith, as the delay in this case is not great and the danger of prejudice to 
Defendants is low. See Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1260 (9th Cir. 
2010) (“critically, the record is devoid of any indication either that [the plaintiff’s] 
counsel acted in bad faith or that an extension of time would prejudice defendants.”).2 
Accordingly, the motion to set aside the judgment is GRANTED. 
/// 
/// 
 
2 Additionally, the Court takes judicial notice that the answer filed in state court was that 
of the State of California, filed by Attorney General Robert Bonta—not that of the 
County of Imperial by counsel Mr. Semerdijian and Mr. Thurstan. (ECF No. 8-2 at 1.) 
Plaintiff represented otherwise. Counsel has a duty to notify the Court when an assertion 
is later determined to be inaccurate. Plaintiff made this assertion on May 15, 2025, 
relating to the State of California’s answer. It is now January 2026, and Plaintiff has 
offered no correction or clarification. 
 
Case 3:25-cv-00249-TWR-LR Document 11 Filed 02/05/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
4 of 5
 
-5- 
25-cv-00249-BEN-LR 
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 
CONCLUSION 
For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to 
Set Aside Judgment (ECF No. 6.) and VACATES the judgment entered in this case on 
March 28, 2025. (ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff is to file his opposition to the County of 
Imperial’s motion to dismiss within 15 days. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
DATED: February 5, 2026 
 HON. ROGER T. BENITEZ 
United States District Judge 
 
Case 3:25-cv-00249-TWR-LR Document 11 Filed 02/05/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
5 of 5

Passage view · GavelSight