Chan-Tay Cross v. United Airlines

MEMORANDUM

Chan-Tay Cross (“Cross”) appeals from the district court’s order denying her mo tion to set aside judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). We review such an order for an abuse of discretion. Casey v. Albertson’s Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1257 (9th Cir.2004). “A district court abuses its discretion if it does not apply the correct law or if it rests its decision on a clearly erroneous finding of material fact.” Id. Applying this standard, we affirm.

1. We have adopted a four-factor equitable analysis “to determine whether neglect is ‘excusable’ under Rule 60(b)(1).” Bateman v. Postal Serv., 231 F.3d 1220, 1223-24 (9th Cir.2000) (citing Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395 , 113 S.Ct. 1489 , 123 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993)). The district court did not abuse its discretion in applying this equitable analysis and determining that the neglect of Cross’s counsel was not excusable. The reasons given by Cross’s counsel were no different than circumstances faced by many lawyers who meet applicable deadlines or timely seek continuances, and, in any event, the unfortunate events do not account for the nearly one-year delay in filing the…