(PC) Coffman v. Borges ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT COFFMAN, Case No. 1:23-cv-00012-CDB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISCHARGING APRIL 28, 2023, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 13 v. 14 BORGES, ET AL, 15 Defendants. 16 17 On April 28, 2023, the Court issued a second order to show cause why sanctions should 18 not be imposed for Plaitniff’s failure to prosecute this action and to comply with the Court’s 19 orders. (Doc. 8). That same day, Counsel for Plaintiff filed a declaration in response to the 20 Court’s order to show cause, as well as the proof of service documents. (Docs. 9-11). Counsel 21 for Plaintiff represented he had difficulty in obtaining and filing “proof of service” from his 22 process service vendor as it was in the process of closing its business. (Doc. 11). Further, 23 Counsel for Plaintiff notes he has experienced staffing problems in his office. Id. at 3. 24 To determine whether neglect is excusable, a court must consider four factors: "(1) the 25 danger of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on 26 the proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith." In 27 re Veritas Software Corp. Sec. Litig., 496 F.3d 962, 973 (9th Cir. 2007). The Court finds 28 Counsel for Plaintiff’s representations in his declaration demonstrate that his failure to follow the 1 || Court’s orders constitute excusable neglect. Moreover, Counsel for Plaintiff’s execution and 2 || filing of proof of service establishes that Plaintiff is engaged in prosecuting this action. (Docs. 9- 3 |} 10). 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, the Court’s April 28, 2023, Order to Show 5 || Cause is DISCHARGED. 6 || TT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: _ May 2, 2023 | Ww v KD i 8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28