FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 17 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FARRAMARZ RAFAEL, No. 12-55642
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-08146-VBF-SS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
SARA HEZHGIAEIAN,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Valerie Baker Fairbank, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 7, 2015**
Pasadena, California
Before: REINHARDT, NOONAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for
decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Plaintiff Farramarz Rafael appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to
vacate dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Applying the Pioneer-Briones factors, we find that the district court did not
err in concluding that Rafael failed to show excusable neglect. Pioneer Inv. Servs.
Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd., 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993); Briones v. Riviera Hotel
& Casino, 116 F.3d 379, 381 (9th Cir. 1997). As the district court noted, Rafael
had multiple opportunities to avoid dismissal, or promptly seek to vacate the
dismissal, and he failed to do so. Rafael failed to respond to the court’s Order to
Show Cause, and he waited nearly a year after dismissal before filing a motion to
set aside the judgment. The district court also did not err in finding that counsel’s
proffered reasons for the delay—the press of business and a busy litigation
schedule—were insufficient to excuse the neglect.
AFFIRMED.
2