E-mail Confusion and Inexperience Did Not Excuse Untimely Filing of Notice of Appeal
Yamuna Bhaskaran | Bloomberg Law
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit dismissed an appeal for lack of jurisdiction where the appellant filed its notice of appeal one day after the statutory deadline. Although the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming permitted the late filing, the Tenth Circuit reversed, holding that appellant’s counsel’s purported e-mail problems and inexperience with appeals did not constitute “excusable neglect” to justify the late filing.
Appellant Biodiversity Conservation Alliance (BCA) sought review of an administrative decision in district court. The lower court upheld the administrative decision, and BCA sought to appeal. Because an agency of the United States was a party to the action, the notice of appeal had to be filed within 60 days of the judgment. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B); 28 U.S.C. § 2107(b).
The district court’s order was filed in the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system on June 10, 2010. BCA’s counsel, however, based her 60-day calculation on the date she received an e-mail copy of the judgment on her America Online (AOL) e-mail account, which was one day later. After being notified that it filed its notice of appeal after 61 days, BCA moved pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) to extend the time to file based on “excusable neglect.” BCA’s counsel claimed that PACER may have experienced an “internal server issue” or that there was “some delay within the AOL system.” She also stated that this was “the only case she had represented in Federal Court and she was unfamiliar with the rules and procedures and was even more unfamiliar with the intricacies of electronic filing and the PACER system.” (Internal quotation and alterations omitted.) The district court granted the motion for an extension of time.
Finding that the district court had abused its discretion in granting the motion, the Tenth Circuit reversed. As the Court explained, “fault in the delay remains a very important factor—perhaps the most important single factor—in determining whether neglect is excusable.” (Internal quotation omitted.) Although BCA acted in good faith and the one-day delay was not prejudicial to respondents, the Court found that “the untimely filing was simply based on counsel’s miscalculation of the deadline or a failure to read the rule, which cannot constitute excusable neglect.” Because timely filing a notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement in a civil case, the Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
This document and any discussions set forth herein are for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice, which has to be addressed to particular facts and circumstances involved in any given situation. Review or use of the document and any discussions does not create an attorney-client relationship with the author or publisher. To the extent that this document may contain suggested provisions, they will require modification to suit a particular transaction, jurisdiction or situation. Please consult with an attorney with the appropriate level of experience if you have any questions. Any tax information contained in the document or discussions is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, for purposes of avoiding penalties imposed under the United States Internal Revenue Code. Any opinions expressed are those of the author. Bloomberg Finance L.P. and its affiliated entities do not take responsibility for the content in this document or discussions and do not make any representation or warranty as to their completeness or accuracy.
© 2011 Bloomberg Finance L.P. All rights reserved. Bloomberg Law Reports ® is a registered trademark and service mark of Bloomberg Finance L.P.