Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01016/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01016-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

ORDER (No. 3:15-cv-01016-LB) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

CARL RENOWITZKY,

Plaintiff,

v.

NEW PENN FINANCIAL, LLC, D/B/A 

SHELLPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICING,

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-01016-LB 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO REOPEN TIME TO FILE 

AN APPEAL

Re: ECF No. 35

INTRODUCTION

The plaintiff, Carl Renowitzky, seeks to reopen the time to file an appeal in accordance with 

Rule 4(a)(6) of the Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure. The court denies Mr. Renowitzky’s 

motion because he received notice within 21 days of entry of judgment and, separately, failed to 

timely file his motion to reopen.

STATEMENT

Mr. Renowitzky sued the defendants in the Superior Court of California for the County of 

Marin on or about September 16, 2014. The defendants removed the action to this court pursuant 

to Sections 1331, 1441(c) and 1446 of Title 28 of the United States Code (“U.S.C.”) on March 4, 

2015. (Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1.) The court entered the judgment for the defendants on 

August 14, 2015. (Judgment, ECF No. 33.)

Case 3:15-cv-01016-LB Document 36 Filed 03/15/16 Page 1 of 4
ORDER (No. 3:15-cv-01016-LB) 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

ANALYSIS

1. Rule 4(a)(6) of the Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure

A court may reopen the time to file an appeal for a period of 14 days after the date when its 

order to reopen is entered, but only if the following three conditions are satisfied. Fed. R. App. 

Pro. 4(a)(6). First, the moving party did not receive notice of the entry of judgment or order sought 

to be appealed within 21 days after entry. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 4(a)(6)(A). Second, the motion is filed 

within 180 days after the judgment or order is entered or within 14 days after the moving party 

receives notice of the entry, whichever is earlier. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 4(a)(6)(B). Third, no party 

would be prejudiced. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 4(a)(6)(C). 

Service of notice of the entry of judgment can be made through various ways including 

electronic means and mail. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 5(b). Service by electronic means is complete upon 

transmission unless the serving party learns that it did not reach the person to be served. Fed. R. 

Civ. Pro. 5(b)(2)(E). Service by mail is complete upon mailing. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 5(b)(2)(C). The 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure also specify how time must be computed. When the period is 

stated in days or a longer unit of time, time is computed in the following manner: exclude the day 

of the event that triggers the period; count every day, including intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, 

and legal holidays; and include the last day of the period, but if the last day is a Saturday, Sunday, 

or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, 

Sunday, or legal holiday. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 6(a)(1). Three days need to be added after the period 

would otherwise expire in the case of serving by electronic means or by mailing. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 

6(d). 

An attorney or a party proceeding pro se whose address changes while an action is pending 

must promptly file with the court and serve upon all opposing parties a Notice of Change of 

Address specifying the new address. Civil L. R. 3-11(a).

In the instant case, Mr. Renowitzky argues that he did not receive notice of the entry of 

judgment within 21 days after entry of judgment and therefore satisfies the first condition. The 

court, however, finds that the notice of the entry of judgment, together with other documents, was 

successfully served through the Electronic Case Files system (“ECF system”) on August 14, 2015, 

Case 3:15-cv-01016-LB Document 36 Filed 03/15/16 Page 2 of 4
ORDER (No. 3:15-cv-01016-LB) 3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

the day the judgment was entered. Three days later, on August 17, the clerk also served the same 

documents by mail. (Certificate of Service, ECF No. 33.) Mr. Renowitzky was therefore properly 

served on August 14, 2015, within 21 days after entry of judgment required by Rule 4(a)(6)(A). 

Mr. Renowitzky also argues that he satisfied the second condition by filing the motion to 

reopen the time to file an appeal within 180 days after the judgment was entered. Rule 4(a)(6)(B) 

requires that the movant file the motion by the earlier of 180 days after the judgment is entered or 

14 days after the moving party receives notice of the entry. The judgment was entered on August 

14, 2015 and Mr. Renowitzky received the notice of the entry of judgment on the same date. Mr. 

Renowitzky filed the motion on February 12, 2016, 182 days after the judgment was entered and 

182 days after he received the notice of the entry of judgment. Even though the requirement of 180 

day limit can be extended to 183 days pursuant to Rule 6(d) of the Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure, Mr. Renowitzky missed the Rule 4(a)(6) deadline because the applicable period in this 

case is 14 days after receiving the notice of the entry of judgment.

Finally, Mr. Renowitzky argues that reopening the time to file an appeal would not prejudice 

any party. Notes of the Advisory Committee of the Rule indicate that “prejudice” “means some 

adverse consequence other than the cost of having to oppose the appeal and encounter the risk of 

reversal, consequences that are present in every appeal.” Paragraph 1 of Notes of Advisory 

Committee on Rules—1991 Amendment. The Notes further explain that “[p]rejudice might arise, 

for example, if the appellee had taken some action in reliance on the expiration of the normal time 

period for filing a notice of appeal.” The court, however, need not determine whether reopening 

the time to file an appeal will cause prejudice to the other party. Rule 4(a)(6) requires the moving 

party to satisfy all three requirements to reopen the time to file an appeal. Mr. Renowitzky failed 

to satisfy the first and the second conditions and thus the motion is denied. 

2. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.22(c) and ADA accommodation request 

Mr. Renowitzky argues that 5 C.F.R . § 1201.22(c) allows a court to reopen the time to appeal 

when good cause is shown. He attempts to show good cause by arguing that he filed an ADA 

accommodation request with the court according to Rule 1.100 of the California Rules of Court 

and was entitled to such accommodation. On April 24, 2015, Mr. Renowitzky filed an ADA 

Case 3:15-cv-01016-LB Document 36 Filed 03/15/16 Page 3 of 4
ORDER (No. 3:15-cv-01016-LB) 4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

accommodation request under the California Rules of Court. The court construed the request as a 

motion for an extension of time to file the opposition to the defendants’ motion for judgment on 

the pleadings that was due on April 21, 2015, and granted Mr. Renowitzky leave to file his 

opposition on May 12, 2015. (ECF No. 19.) In order to extend the time to file an appeal, Mr. 

Renowitzky needed to file a motion for extension of time. However, the court did not receive any 

motion for extension of time to file an appeal from Mr. Renowitzky after the judgment was 

entered and the notice of entry of judgment was served to Mr. Renowitzky. 

The court cannot grant the motion on the basis of 5 C.F.R. § 1201.22(c). This regulation is a 

provision in the Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulation. It governs proceedings before the Merit 

Systems Protection Board, an independent quasi-judicial organization that resolves issues between 

the federal government and its employees. This provision is not applicable to civil proceedings in 

a federal court. 

CONCLUSION

Because Mr. Renowitzky failed to follow Rule 4(a)(6) of the Federal Rule of Appellate 

Procedure to file the motion to reopen the time to file an appeal, the court denies Mr. 

Renowitzky’s motion to reopen the time to file an appeal. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 15, 2016

______________________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-01016-LB Document 36 Filed 03/15/16 Page 4 of 4