Toledo et al v. Palafox et al

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
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Emma Ochoa-Toledo, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Andrew Palafox, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CIV 24-195-TUC-CKJ
ORDER
Pending before the Court is the Motion to Set Aside the Judgement in Favor of
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ. 60(b)(1) (Doc. 50) filed
by Plaintiffs. The Court finds it appropriate to consider the Motion without a response.
The applicable rule states:
Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding. On motion and
just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final
judgment, order, or proceeding for . . . mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable
neglect.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1). The Ninth Circuit has stated:
Excusable neglect "encompass[es] situations in which the failure to comply with a
filing deadline is attributable to negligence," Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick
Assocs. Ltd., 507 U.S. 380, 394, 113 S.Ct. 1489, 123 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993), and
includes "omissions caused by carelessness," id. at 388, 113 S.Ct. 1489. The
determination of whether neglect is excusable "is at bottom an equitable one, taking
account of all relevant circumstances surrounding the party's omission." Id. at 395,
113 S.Ct. 1489. To determine when neglect is excusable, we conduct the equitable
analysis specified in Pioneer by examining "at least four factors: (1) the danger of
prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact
on the proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the movant acted
in good faith." [Bateman v. USPS, 231 F.3d 1220, 1223-24 (9th Cir. 2000)].
Lemoge v. United States, 587 F.3d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Pincay v. Andrews,
389 F.3d 853, 855-56 (9th Cir. 2004).
Case 4:24-cv-00195-CKJ Document 51 Filed 04/20/26 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 -
In this case, the delay itself only minimally prejudices Defendants. See Bateman, 231
F.3d at 1225 (finding minimal prejudice where defendants "would have lost a quick victory
and, should it ultimately have lost the summary judgment motion . . . would have to
reschedule the trial date"). Further, Plaintiffs have quickly sought the requested relief and
the minimal delay does not significantly impact the judicial proceedings. Significantly, the
Court finds no basis to conclude counsel or his staff acted in bad faith. Indeed, counsel has
demonstrated his efforts to comply with deadlines by the filing of prior requested
extensions. Compare In re Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., No. CV. 08-00405 DAE-BMK, 2011
WL 1483923, at *4 (D. Haw. Apr. 18, 2011) (considering prior non-compliance of court
orders and deadlines in other litigation in excusable neglect analysis).
Moreover, counsel's reasons for the delay indicate that, while the filing and conduct
of staff was within counsel's ultimate control, his staff's personal issues contributed the
failure to file a timely response. Further, as discussed in Lemoge, it is appropriate to
consider the prejudice to the named Plaintiffs. 587 F.3d at 1196 (recognizing that plaintiffs
"would endure the ultimate prejudice of being forever barred from pursuing their claims").
Here, the Court finds the prejudice to Plaintiffs, as a result of counsel's failure to file a
timely response, is significant as they would be denied a full opportunity to respond to the
Motion for Summary Judgment.
The Court finds it appropriate to grant Plaintiffs' request. However, Plaintiffs'
counsel is advised no additional extensions of time to file a response to the Motion for
Summary Judgment will be granted.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:
1. 	The Motion to Set Aside the Judgement in Favor of Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ. 60(b)(1) (Doc. 50) is GRANTED.
2. 	The Court's March 26, 2026, Order and the Clerk of Court's March 26, 2026,
Judgment are VACATED.
3. 	Plaintiffs shall file a response to the Motion for Summary Judgment within
Case 4:24-cv-00195-CKJ Document 51 Filed 04/20/26 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 -
thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. Defendants shall file any reply within 15 days of
service of the response.
DATED this 17th day of April, 2026.
Case 4:24-cv-00195-CKJ Document 51 Filed 04/20/26 Page 3 of 3