Minacis v. Park

Background

Mikela Minacis filed a complaint alleging one claim for breach of contract. Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim screened the complaint and concluded that the court lacked jurisdiction because the complaint alleged only a state-law claim and did not allege the facts required for diversity jurisdiction: that more than $75,000 was at issue and that Minacis and Jason Park were citizens of different states. Judge Kim also concluded that the complaint did not adequately allege the existence of a contract.

Judge Kim dismissed the complaint and ordered Minacis to file an amended complaint. After Minacis did not respond to a later order to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, Judge Kim issued a report and recommendation. The court adopted that recommendation on May 15, 2024, dismissed the case, and entered judgment.

Motion for Relief from Judgment

Minacis later filed a motion to reinstate the case. The court construed it as a motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). That rule allows a court to provide relief from a final judgment for specified reasons, including mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, and for other reasons that justify relief.

The opinion’s provided text begins partway through the court’s discussion of the circumstances surrounding Minacis’s failure to respond. The court states that it found excusable neglect, relied on other courts’ findings of excusable neglect in similar circumstances, and noted that Minacis filed his motion less than one year after judgment was entered.

Ruling and Next Steps

The court granted Minacis’s motion for relief from judgment. It vacated the May 15, 2024 dismissal order and related judgment and ordered the Clerk to reopen the case. This order did not decide whether Minacis will ultimately prevail on his contract claim.

The court ordered Minacis to file an amended complaint by February 28, 2025. The amended complaint must either allege a federal-law claim or adequately allege diversity jurisdiction. It must also allege the existence of a contract, Minacis’s performance or legally sufficient excuse for nonperformance, Park’s breach, and damages. The complaint must include the relevant contract terms or attach the contract, identify the specific provision allegedly breached, and explain how Park allegedly breached it.

The court stated that if Minacis does not file the amended complaint by the deadline, it will dismiss the case for failure to prosecute, and that dismissal will be with prejudice. Judge Jon S. Tigar also advised Minacis to keep the court informed of any address change.