Bateman v. Alpine Management and Consulting

FILED 2020 NOV 20 PM 1:08 CLERK en IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, NORTHERN DIVISION MAX BATEMAN and CONNIE BATEMAN, | MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR Plaintiffs, EXTENSION OF TIME v. Case No. 1:18-CV-94 DBP ALPINE MANAGEMENT AND CONSULTING, LLC; et al., Chief Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead Defendants.

On November 2, 2020, the court dismissed this case and denied Plaintiffs’ Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No. 60.) Now before the court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Extension of Time because they have witnesses. (ECF No. 61.) “After a motion to dismiss has been granted, plaintiffs must first reopen the case pursuant to a motion under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) ....”

Glenn vy. First Nat'l Bank in Grand Junction, 868 F.2d 368, 371 (10th Cir. 1989). Pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court “may relieve a party ... from a final judgment, order, or proceeding” where the party shows: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); [or] (6) any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60.

Whether excusable neglect exists is “‘at bottom an equitable one, taking account of all relevant circumstances surrounding the party's omission.’” Jennings v. Rivers, 394 F.3d 850, 856 (10th Cir. 2005) (quoting Pioneer Inv. Services Co. v. Bunswick Ass'n Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993)). To find excusable neglect, courts weigh a number of factors, including: “‘the danger of prejudice to the [opposing party], the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant, and whether the movant acted in good faith.’” /d. (citations omitted).

None of these factors weigh in favor of reopening this case.

Construing Plaintiffs’ pro se motion liberally, it provides no basis to reopen the case. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED.

DATED this 20 November 2020.

Duspt_B-P gad United Staves Mapistrate Judge