O'Donnell v. C.R. England, Inc.

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
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SHANE O’DONNELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
C.R. ENGLAND, INC.,
Defendant.
Case No. 2:26-cv-1745-JDP
ORDER
The court addresses whether this action should be reopened. Plaintiff failed to timely file
his status report, causing the court to continue the scheduling conference and issue an order to
show cause. Plaintiff missed the second deadline to file his status report and never responded to
the order to show cause. However, despite this disregard for court orders, the court will reopen
this action because of its interest in resolving actions on the merits.
Procedural History
Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit on May 7, 2026. ECF No. 1. Defendant answered on June
18, 2026. ECF No. 6. On July 6, 2026, the court set this matter for an initial scheduling
conference for August 6, 2026, and ordered the parties to file a joint status report no more than 14
days prior to the scheduling conference. ECF No. 8. According to plaintiff, defense counsel
emailed plaintiff’s counsel on July 7, 2026, about the joint status report. ECF No. 14-2 at 2. On
July 17, 2026, plaintiff’s counsel “forwarded defense counsel’s email internally” but “did not
Case 2:26-cv-01745-JDP Document 17 Filed 10/09/26 Page 1 of 4

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
thereafter ensure that Plaintiff’s status report was prepare and filed.” Id. Defendant filed its
report on July 24, 2026. ECF No. 9. Plaintiff did not file a status report.
On August 4, 2026, the court continued the conference until August 20, 2026, and ordered
plaintiff to show cause as to why sanctions should not be imposed for his failure to comply with
July 6, 2026 order. ECF No. 10. The court also ordered plaintiff to file his status report by
August 6, 2026. Id. Plaintiff’s counsel states that he “did not timely review and act upon the
electronic notice concerning the [August 4] Order.” ECF No. 14-2 at 2. On August 7, 2026, the
Courtroom Deputy emailed the parties that the hearing would be held in-person on August 20,
2026. Plaintiff’s counsel responded “Will do. Thank you.” Id.
Plaintiff failed to file his status report or respond to the order to show cause by August 19,
2026, the day before the hearing. Accordingly, on August 19, 2026, the court dismissed this
action for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders. ECF No. 12. On August
24, 2026, plaintiff filed the instant motion for relief from judgment. ECF No. 14. Defendant has
not filed an opposition to the motion.
Discussion
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) provides that, “[o]n 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.” The Supreme Court has held that
“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). And “neglect” is understood to include “omissions caused by
carelessness.” Id. at 388. Further, the determination whether neglect is excusable “is at bottom
an equitable one, taking account of all relevant circumstances surrounding the party’s omission.”
Id. at 395. It includes an evaluation of “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. U.S. Postal
Serv., 231 F.3d 1220,1223-24 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 395).
Case 2:26-cv-01745-JDP Document 17 Filed 10/09/26 Page 2 of 4

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
Plaintiff argues that the court should reopen this action because defendant will not be
prejudiced, the delay is minimal, counsel’s failure was due to negligence instead of willfulness,
and because plaintiff has acted in good faith. ECF No. 14-1 at 4-5. The court agrees that the
prejudice to defendant is low as proceedings were just starting and that the length of delay was
minimal as plaintiff filed this motion less than a week after the case closed. Indeed, defendant
has not opposed plaintiff’s motion. And the court accepts plaintiff’s counsel’s acknowledgment
of his errors and finds that the missed deadlines were not willful. With that said, however, the
court finds it is necessary to highlight the court resources unnecessarily expended because of
plaintiff’s counsel’s negligence. The court had to set a scheduling conference, continue the
scheduling conference once plaintiff missed the filing deadline, issue an order to show cause for
plaintiff’s missed deadline, issue an order closing this action for plaintiff’s failure to comply with
court orders and failure to prosecute, and now adjudicate plaintiff’s motion for relief from
judgment. Deadlines in this court are to be strictly adhered to. The court will not provide
plaintiff with the same leniency going forward.
Conclusion
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment, ECF No. 14, is GRANTED and this
action is REOPENED.
2. In accordance with the July 6, 2026 order, the initial scheduling conference is set
for November 12, 2026. Plaintiff shall file his status report within fourteen days
prior to the scheduling conference. Failure to timely file his report will result in
the dismissal of this action.
3. Defendant is permitted to re-file its report within fourteen days, should it be
necessary, to accommodate for the delay in scheduling this action.
Case 2:26-cv-01745-JDP Document 17 Filed 10/09/26 Page 3 of 4

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
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 9, 2026
JEREMY D. PETERSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:26-cv-01745-JDP Document 17 Filed 10/09/26 Page 4 of 4