The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District Judge
Present: The Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District Judge
Wendy K. Hernandez Not Present n/a
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorneys Present for Defendant(s): Not Present Not Present
Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Relief from Order of Dismissal
Before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion for relief from order of dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The Court finds the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15. Having considered the papers submitted in support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court GRANTS the motion.
Plaintiffs Adam and Vicky Darling ("Plaintiffs") filed a state court action against William E. Green, Donalyn E. Green, William E. Green and Donalyn E. Green d/b/a RV World Recreation Vehicle Center, Fleetwood RV ("Fleetwood"), Freightliner, Timothy Demartini d/b/a Demartini's RV Sales, Kevin Parker, Fleetwood Motor Homes, Cummins, Inc., Cummins West, General Equipment, and Sacramento Truck (collectively, "Defendants"). See Dkt. # 1. Defendants removed the case to federal court. Id. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated a number of state and federal laws in conjunction with the purchase and delivery of a defective motor home. See generally FAC.
On June 28, 2012, Fleetwood filed a motion to dismiss. Dkt. # 44. The
motion was set for hearing on August 27, 2012 at 1:30 p.m.Under Local
Rule 7-9, Plaintiffs' Opposition was due 21 days prior to the date of
the hearing, on August 6, 2012. Plaintiffs filed their untimely
Opposition on August 21, 2012, the same day the Court issued a minute
Fleetwood's motion to dismiss. Dkts. # 53, 54.
Nearly three months later, Plaintiffs filed this motion requesting relief from the dismissal. Dkt. # 61. Plaintiffs allege that the events leading to the dismissal were the result of mistake, inadvertence, and/or excusable neglect by Plaintiffs' counsel. Mot. 2:16-18. Plaintiffs explain that counsel did not file a timely Opposition due to a calendaring error. Mot. 2:18-20. In their motion, Plaintiffs contend that counsel "was under the mistaken belief that all three parties' responsive pleadings had been filed at around the same time, and that all oppositions were due at the same ...