Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01025/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01025-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 - Diversity: Securities Fraud

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Robert Facciola, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Greenberg Traurig LLP, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-1025-PHX-FJM

ORDER

Lead plaintiffs have filed a motion to extend time to appeal or alternatively for

reconsideration, and a motion for expedited ruling (doc. 477). Plaintiffs ask us to reconsider

our order finding moot their motion for entry of final judgment in favor of the MHM

defendants (doc. 476). In that order we concluded that the entry of a separate final judgment

in favor of MHM was unnecessary because the filing of the final judgments against

Greenberg and Quarles disposed of the entire case leaving nothing pending in this action.

Once those final judgments were entered, the earlier interlocutory orders involving MHM

became final and appealable. See American Ironworks & Erectors Inc. v. North Am. Constr.

Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 897-98 (9th Cir. 2001). 

Plaintiffs now express concern that they must appeal from the Greenberg and Quarles

final judgments calling into question the finality of those judgments and leaving open the

possibility of a delay in the distribution of the settlement proceeds. We disagree. Plaintiffs

Case 2:10-cv-01025-FJM Document 481 Filed 12/05/12 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 -

can appeal the two orders entered in favor of MHM (docs. 200 and 289) which became final

and appealable as a result of the entry of the judgments resolving all claims in this action.

They would not need to appeal the judgments entered against Greenberg and Quarles. See

Fed. R. App. 3(c)(1)(B) (a notice of appeal must “designate the judgment, order, or part

thereof being appealed.”); 16A Wright & Miller, Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 3949.4 (4th ed. 2012);

Finch v. Fort Bend Ind. Sch. Dist., 333 F.3d 555, 565 (5th Cir. 2003) (“When an appellant

chooses to appeal specific determinations of the district court–rather than simply appealing

from an entire judgment–only the specified issues may be raised on appeal.”). Accordingly

we deny plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider this ruling.

We grant plaintiffs’ motion to extend the time to appeal. We may extend the time to

file a notice of appeal if the party shows excusable neglect or good cause. Fed. R. App. P.

4(a)(5)(A)(ii). In considering a motion to extend the time to appeal we will consider (1) the

reason for the delay, (2) whether the moving party acted in good faith, (3) the danger of

prejudice to the non-moving party, and (4) the length of delay and its potential impact on

judicial proceedings. Pincay v. Andrews, 389 F.3d 853, 855-56 (9th Cir. 1996). Each of

these factors weighs in favor of an extension. Lead plaintiffs acted diligently and in good

faith in structuring the Greenberg and Quarles final judgments so as to avoid delay in

disbursing settlement proceeds. MHM would not be prejudiced by the delay because

plaintiffs have consistently made known their intention to appeal. The length of the delay

is insubstantial and will not affect future judicial proceedings. Accordingly, we find

plaintiffs’ neglect excusable and grant plaintiffs’ motion to extend the time to appeal the

orders in favor of MHM. Plaintiffs’ notice of appeal must be filed no later than 14 days from

the entry of this order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(C). 

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING lead plaintiffs’ motion to extend, DENYING the

motion for reconsideration, and GRANTING the motion for expedited ruling (doc. 477).

DATED this 4th day of December, 2012.

 

Case 2:10-cv-01025-FJM Document 481 Filed 12/05/12 Page 2 of 2