X hits on this document

17 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

7 / 10

3.

Reason for the Delay

As shown above, there was no real delay in Thompson’s requesting the reopening

of her case. She had traveled from Nevada to Pennsylvania to care for her injured

daughter, a situation which certainly predominated her life. Under these circumstances, it

is understandable that a litigant would neglect to think of informing counsel of her

whereabouts in a case which had already been languishing far too long. When Thompson

became aware of the dismissal, she acted immediately and contacted her counsel.

4.

Good Faith

A party acts in good faith where it acts with “reasonable haste to investigate the problem

and to take available steps toward remedy.” Welch & Forbes, Inc. v. Cendant Corp. (In re

Cendant Corp. Prides Litig.), 235 F.3d 176, 184 (3d Cir. 2000). Thompson acted in good faith

when she immediately contacted counsel upon receipt of the Order dismissing her case.

Counsel, in turn, promptly filed this motion to reopen. Accordingly, this final factor also

weighs in favor of the case’s reopening.

Having considered all the Pioneer factors and all relevant circumstances, I find that the

plaintiff’s neglect was excusable. There is not sufficient prejudice to the defendants to prevent

the reopening of the case, whereas denying the motion would preclude the plaintiff from

pursuing her claims. There was virtually no delay between the time that Thompson learned of

the dismissal and the time she contacted counsel to request a reopening. Thus, there has been

little effect on the judicial proceedings. The plaintiff acted in good faith once she received a

copy of the Order dismissing the case.

7

Document info
Document views17
Page views17
Page last viewedSat Dec 03 12:20:12 UTC 2016
Pages10
Paragraphs178
Words2011

Comments