Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_03-cv-02510/USCOURTS-casd-3_03-cv-02510-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--Other Contract

---

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

- 1 - 03cv2510

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LINWORTH LLC,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 03cv2510-BEN (AJB)

ORDER Re: MOTION FOR

ORDER PURSUANT TO FRCP

58(c)(2) OR FOR ORDER

PURSUANT TO FRCP 4(a)(5) TO

EXTEND TIME TO FILE A

NOTICE OF APPEAL 

(Dkt. No. 100)

vs.

JGR VENTURES, et al.,

Defendants.

Now before the Court is Linworth LLC’s Motion for an order pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Pro.

Rule 58(c)(2) or for order pursuant to FRAP Rule 4(a)(5) to extend time to file a notice of appeal. 

The Court declines to rule on the FRCP Rule 58(c)(2) motion in view of its ruling on the

alternative motion to extend the time to appeal.

 Linworth LLC also moves for an extension of time to file an appeal pursuant to FRAP Rule

4(a)(5). Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) permits a district court to extend the time for

filing a notice of appeal if the motion is timely and “the party shows excusable neglect or good

cause.” Here, Linworth LLC points to a calendaring error by its attorney to show its excusable

neglect. In Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993), the Supreme

Court held that the concept of excusable neglect is an equitable one, and directed courts to

consider all of the relevant circumstances surrounding a party’s omission. Considerations

specifically identified by the Supreme Court include: the danger of prejudice to the other party, the

length of delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, the reason for the delay and

Case 3:03-cv-02510-BEN-AJB Document 107 Filed 07/30/07 Page 1 of 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

- 2 - 03cv2510

whether the movant acted in good faith. Id. Since Pioneer was decided, the Ninth Circuit has

approved district court decisions finding excusable neglect where sophisticated attorneys missed

filing deadlines. See, In re Zilog, Inc., 450 F.3d 996, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006) (“In Pioneer and Pincay

[v. Andrews, 389 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2004)], sophisticated attorneys were left off the hook after

missing filing deadlines.”). Having now considered the Pioneer factors as applied to Linworth

LLC’s circumstances, the Court finds excusable neglect and grants Linworth LLC’s motion to

extend the time for filing a notice of appeal, pursuant to FRAP Rule 4(a)(5). 

Therefore, Linworth LLC shall have 10 days from the date of this Order to file a notice of

appeal. See FRAP Rule 4(a)(5)(C)(no extension beyond 10 days from the date of the order

granting the motion for extension).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 30, 2007

Hon. Roger T. Benitez

United States District Judge

Case 3:03-cv-02510-BEN-AJB Document 107 Filed 07/30/07 Page 2 of 2