Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-01844/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-01844-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1345 Foreclosure

---

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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RUSSELL STEWART, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

AMERICAN GENERAL FINANCE, 

INC., et al., 

Defendant. 

No. 2:18-cv-01844-KJM-CKD 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff Russell Stewart, proceeding pro se, moves to extend or re-open the time 

to appeal the court’s dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a claim. Mot., ECF No. 60. 

Defendants DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc., Rushmore Loan Management Services LLC, Select 

Portfolio Servicing, Inc., and Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB oppose. “DLJ Opp’n,” 

ECF No. 63. Defendant OneMain Financial Services opposes separately. “OneMain Opp’n,” 

ECF No. 65. Plaintiff replied. Reply, ECF No. 68. Having considered the moving papers, the 

court GRANTS plaintiff’s motion. 

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

 Plaintiff’s first amended complaint alleges violations of the California 

Homeowner’s Bill of Rights (HBOR) and racial discrimination against various financial 

institutions relating to the foreclosure sale of plaintiff’s home. First. Am. Compl. (FAC), ECF 

Case 2:18-cv-01844-KJM-CKD Document 69 Filed 02/25/20 Page 1 of 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 

2 

No. 36. On April 11, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 

recommending that this court dismiss the First Amended Complaint with prejudice for failure to 

state a claim, ECF No. 50, and on September 30, 2019, the undersigned did so, adopting the 

findings and recommendations in full. ECF No. 54. 

 Plaintiff proceeded to file a notice of appeal on November 1, 2019, 32 days after 

the entry of the judgment. ECF No. 56. Because the notice of appeal was untimely under Federal 

Rules of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A), plaintiff now moves to extend or re-open time to appeal. 

Plaintiff alleges he drove to Sacramento “immediately after receiving this anxiously anticipated 

ruling” to file his notice of appeal. Mot. at 2. He “believes either his mail was inadvertently not 

collected timely, or mail was put in box [sic] on that Wednesday Oct. 30 2019.” Id. He also 

states he was “displaced from his residence due to the wrongful foreclosure.” Reply at 2 

(capitalization altered from original). 

 Defendants argue plaintiff failed to provide any evidence that he had diligently 

checked his post office box, the only address on file with the court. DLJ Opp’n at 4. As a result, 

they argue, he did not make a showing that he did not timely receive notice from the clerk of 

court. Id. In his reply, plaintiff states he checked his mailbox “weekly” and that he was not 

acting in bad faith. Reply at 2. He also attaches an unauthenticated Office of the Inspector 

General report about late and lost mail generally. Reply, Ex. A.1 

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

 The notice of appeal must be filed in a civil case “within 30 days after entry of the 

judgment or order appealed from.” Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). The court may extend time to file 

a notice of appeal on motion if the motion is filed within 30 days of the deadline prescribed by 

Rule 4(a), and the moving party shows excusable neglect or good cause. Fed. R. App. P. 

4(a)(5)(A). While prior cases have held that the standard of excusable neglect is “a strict one” 

intended to allow extension only in “extraordinary cases where injustice would otherwise result” 

 

1

 To support his assertions, plaintiff attaches an affidavit, but it contains nothing of substance 

beyond plaintiff’s name, age, and the statement that the affidavit is based on his personal 

knowledge. Reply, Ex. B. It is possible plaintiff intended to verify his pleading, but the court 

declines to find his reply admissible on this basis. 

Case 2:18-cv-01844-KJM-CKD Document 69 Filed 02/25/20 Page 2 of 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 

3 

(see Pratt v. McCarthy, 850 F. 2d 590, 592 (9th Cir. 1988); Alaska Limestone Corp. v. Hodel, 

799 f. 2d 1409, 1411 (9th Cir. 1986)), the current more lenient standard is set forth in Pioneer Inv. 

Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 386 n.3 (1993) (citing Pratt in 

Supreme Court resolution of circuit split about meaning of excusable neglect); see also 

Calderon v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 137 F. 3d 1420, 1422 (9th Cir. 1998) 

(recognizing Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. overrules Pratt). The determination of whether neglect is 

excusable is “at bottom an equitable one, taking account of all relevant circumstances 

surrounding the party’s omission.” Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co., 507 U.S. at 395. Circumstances to be 

considered are the danger of prejudice to the opposing party, the length of the delay and its 

potential impact on judicial proceedings, the reason for the delay, including whether it was within 

the reasonable control of the movant, and whether the movant acted in good faith. Id. 

III. DISCUSSION 

 Here, defendants do not argue reopening plaintiff’s time to appeal will prejudice 

them, and no likelihood of prejudice is apparent to the court. The length and impact of the delay 

also weigh in favor of the plaintiff, as he filed his notice of appeal a mere two days after the 

deadline. 

 It is reasonable to infer from plaintiff’s motion that his use of a post office box was 

due to his displacement from his home after the foreclosure at issue. Reply at 2. While it appears 

to the court that the plaintiff misapprehended the use of the affidavit to introduce evidence into 

the record regarding his diligence in checking the mailbox, see note 1 supra, the pleadings and 

papers filed by pro se litigants are often held to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings 

drafted by lawyers[.]” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). In addition, Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 11’s prohibition on misrepresentation to the court weighs in favor of 

consideration of plaintiff’s statements of fact in his motion and reply, although not for their 

evidentiary weight. Plaintiff’s pleadings on this point do not squarely establish he was not 

culpable for the delay. At the same time, given that the Pioneer test is one grounded in equity, 

this factor does not outweigh the others. 

///// 

Case 2:18-cv-01844-KJM-CKD Document 69 Filed 02/25/20 Page 3 of 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 

4 

 Lastly, nothing suggests plaintiff acted in bad faith in filing his notice of appeal 

two days late; delay is not to his advantage and he had no incentive to do so deliberately. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

 For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS plaintiff’s motion to extend the time 

to appeal. Plaintiff’s notice of appeal is deemed timely filed under Federal Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 4(a)(5)(C). 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: February 24, 2020. 

Case 2:18-cv-01844-KJM-CKD Document 69 Filed 02/25/20 Page 4 of 4