Gravatt
Gravatt v. Paul Revere Life Insurance
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
The district court held that Gravatt failed to show excusable neglect, citing *195 Engleson v. Burlington Northern Railroad Company, 972 F.2d 1038 (9th Cir.1992), for the proposition that “ignorance or carelessness on the part of a litigant or his attorney ... [are not] grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)(1).” Id. at 1043 . The district court abused its discretion in failing to apply the equitable test for excusable neglect.
“[T]he determination of whether neglect is excusable is an equitable one that depends on at least four factors: (1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the ... [gravity of the neglect] and its potential impact on the proceedings; (3) the reason for the [neglect]; and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith.” Bateman v. United States Postal Serv., 231 F.3d 1220, 1223-24 (9th Cir.2000) (citing Pioneer Investment Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 395 , 113 S.Ct. 1489 , 123 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993)).
In Briones v. Riviera Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d 379 (9th Cir.1997) (per curiam), we held that “Pioneer sets forth an equitable ‘framework’ for determining the question of excusable neglect in particular cases,…
Dissenting Opinion
Wallace, J.
dissenting.
The district court correctly determined that Gravatt “did not promptly seek relief” from the summary judgment it entered against Gravatt on May 15, 2000. Gravatt’s “Motion for Relief from Judgement” (Motion) indeed was not “within a reasonable time” as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) when it was filed (1) one year after the district court entered judgment on the merits, (2) at least half a year after hearing that his action was dismissed, (3) months after initiating a malpractice suit that rests on the same allegation, (4) only after learning that the malpractice suit would yield no meaningful recovery, and (5) just after Paul Revere Life Insurance Company (Paul Revere) could no longer collect evidence to oppose such relief. I cannot join the majority in its attempt to take this perfectly sound decision and recast it as an abuse of discretion.
I start where we should: by identifying the applicable standard of review since, as often is the case, it is critical to our decision. We are to review the district court’s denial for an abuse of discretion. G.C. & K.B. Invs., Inc. v. Wilson, 326 F.3d 1096, 1108 (9th Cir.2003). Under this deferential standard,…