Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-07094/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-07094-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

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

VIOLETA S. VILLANUEVA,

Plaintiff,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-07094-KAW 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF 

TIME TO APPEAL

Re: Dkt. No. 41-1

Plaintiff Violeta S. Villanueva filed the instant case against Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, 

N.A., alleging negligence and conversion claims based on Defendant’s handling of Plaintiff’s loan 

modification application. (First Amended Compl. (“FAC”) ¶ 12, Dkt. No. 22.) On April 5, 2019, 

the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice based on the expiration of the statute of 

limitations. (Dismissal Ord., Dkt. No. 39.) Judgment was entered that same day. (Dkt. No. 40.)

Plaintiff’s deadline to appeal was May 6, 2019, or “30 days after the judgment or order 

appealed from is entered.”1 Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). On June 4, 2019, Plaintiff filed her notice 

of appeal. (Notice of Appeal, Dkt. No. 41.) Plaintiff also filed a motion for an extension of time 

to appeal as an attachment to the notice of appeal. (Plf.’s Mot. to Extend Time, Dkt. No. 41-1.) 

Plaintiff asserted that she did not file a timely notice of appeal because “Plaintiff’s attorney is 

recovering from CABG (Cardiac Artery Bypass Graft) surgery on 4/19/2018 and recently has 

suffered some related health issues that has affected his ability to work . . . .” (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff 

did not attach a declaration or any other evidence. On August 7, 2019, Defendant filed its 

 

1

30 days from April 5, 2019 is May 5, 2019, a Sunday. Therefore, Plaintiff’s deadline was the 

following business day.

Case 4:18-cv-07094-KAW Document 49 Filed 08/13/19 Page 1 of 4
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

opposition and a request for judicial notice.2 (Def.’s Opp’n, Dkt. No. 47; Def.’s Request for 

Judicial Notice (“RJN”), Dkt. No. 48.)

Per Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5)(A), the district court may extend the time 

to file a notice of appeal if the “party so moves no later than 30 days after the time prescribed by 

this Rule 4(a) expires,” and “that party shows excusable neglect or good cause.” In determining 

excusable neglect, courts consider the Pioneer factors of: “(1) the danger of prejudice to the nonmoving party, (2) the length of delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, (3) the 

reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant, and (4) 

whether the moving party’s conduct was in good faith.” Pincay v. Andrews, 389 F.3d 853, 855 

(9th Cir. 2004). A court is within its discretion to deny relief if it concludes that the party seeking 

relief “failed to present any evidence relevant to the four factors.” Bateman v. U.S. Postal Serv., 

231 F.3d 1220, 1224 (9th Cir. 2000).

As an initial matter, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s motion should be denied because 

Plaintiff did not properly file the motion. (Def.’s Opp’n at 2.) Defendant correctly points out that 

Plaintiff failed to comply with the Local Rules regarding motions, instead attaching the motion to 

the Notice of Appeal. (Id.) The motion, however, was filed, as acknowledged by the Ninth 

Circuit. (Dkt. No. 45 (“Although the June 4, 2019 notice of appeal was not filed within 30 days 

after entry of the April 5, 2019 judgment, on June 4, 2019, appellant filed a motion for extension 

of time to appeal pursuant to [Rule] 4(a)(5). The motion was appended to the notice of appeal.”).) 

To deny Plaintiff’s motion solely on procedural grounds is not warranted in this case.

Notwithstandiing, the Court finds that the Pioneer factors do not support granting 

Plaintiff’s motion. First, there is some danger of prejudice, although this factor does not weigh 

strongly against finding excusable neglect. As Defendant points out, this case was dismissed on 

statute of limitations grounds, as Plaintiff’s loan modification application was denied in January 

2013. (Dismissal Ord. at 6.) Defendant raises concerns that “[t]he longer the case is dragged out, 

 

2 Defendant seeks judicial notice of various court filings. The Court GRANTS Defendant’s 

request for judicial notice because they are true and correct copies of a court record. United States 

v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980).

Case 4:18-cv-07094-KAW Document 49 Filed 08/13/19 Page 2 of 4
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 less likely Wells Fargo will be able to locate employees or witnesses with relevant information 

in the event this matter were ever to go trial.” (Def.’s Opp’n at 4.)

Second, the length of delay is not significant to warrant denying relief, although the Court 

notes that Plaintiff waited until almost the last day to file the motion to extend time.

Third, Plaintiff attributes the reason for delay to Plaintiff’s counsel suffering from health 

issues that affected his ability to work due to his recovery from Cardiac Artery Bypass Graft 

surgery performed on April 19, 2018. (Plf.’s Mot. to Extend Time at 1.) Plaintiff, however, does 

not provide any evidence in support, such as a declaration by Plaintiff’s counsel. The absence of 

supporting evidence is particularly significant because court filings show Plaintiff’s counsel was 

practicing during this time. On April 12, 2019, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a supplemental response 

to an order to show cause in Salvador v. Live-At-Home Care Connection, Case No. 18-cv-7159-

SVK. (Def.’s RJN, Exh. 1.) On April 22, 2019, Plaintiff’s counsel filed an application for 

approval of attorney’s fees in In re Jo Ann Kidwell-Parson, Case No. 19-30352-HLB. (Def.’s 

RJN, Exh. 4.) As Plaintiff’s counsel provides no evidence that health issues from a surgery 

performed nearly one year prior affected his ability to work, and other evidence shows Plaintiff’s 

counsel did, in fact, work during the appeal period, the Court finds Plaintiff has failed to show that 

the reason for delay was due to health issues. See Bateman, 231 F.3d at 1224

Fourth, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s conduct does not appear to be in good faith. As

discussed above, Plaintiff attributes the delay to counsel’s health issues, yet Plaintiff’s counsel 

made other filings during the appeal period. Additionally, Plaintiff waited until almost the last day 

to file the instant motion despite filing documents in other cases in the interim, further suggesting 

undue delay. (Def.’s RJN, Exh. 2 (May 21, 2019 response to an order to show cause), 3 (May 22, 

2019 request to appear by phone), 5 (May 8, 2019 amended bankruptcy petition).)

Having considered the Pioneer factors, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to 

demonstrate excusable neglect. While the length of delay may support a finding of excusable 

neglect, the remaining factors do not, particularly the reason for delay and whether Plaintiff’s 

conduct was in good faith.

///

Case 4:18-cv-07094-KAW Document 49 Filed 08/13/19 Page 3 of 4
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

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to extend the time to appeal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 13, 2019

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:18-cv-07094-KAW Document 49 Filed 08/13/19 Page 4 of 4