Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_04-cv-00901/USCOURTS-azd-3_04-cv-00901-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

MURILLO, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

RIDGE ON SEDONA GOLF, et al, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-04-0901-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before this Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to file a Delayed Notice of

Appeal (Doc. # 36). 

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On February 17, 2006, this Court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant,

Ridge on Sedona Golf Resort. The Clerk of the Court entered Judgment on February 21,

2006. Plaintiff’s counsel states they received electronic notice of the Judgment and, on

February 24, 2006, a mailed copy of the Judgment. Plaintiff’s counsel further states they

mailed a copy of the electronic Judgment to Plaintiff on February 22, 2006, March 7, 2006,

and March 17, 2006. On March 22, 2006, Plaintiff met with his counsel. At the meeting,

Plaintiff claimed he had not received any of the three mailings from his counsel containing

copies of the Judgment. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s counsel provided Plaintiff with another

copy of the Judgment at the meeting. It was at this meeting that Plaintiff indicated his desire

Case 3:04-cv-00901-JAT Document 39 Filed 06/28/06 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 -

to appeal the Judgment. On March 30, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File a

Delayed Notice of Appeal. Defendant filed a Response to the motion on April 14, 2006. 

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure states that, in a civil case, the

notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after the judgment or order is entered. Fed. R.

App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). Judgment was entered against Plaintiff on February 21, 2006. The

deadline to file a notice of appeal was March 23, 2006. Plaintiff missed this deadline and

filed the motion seeking leave to file a delayed notice of appeal on March 30, 2006. 

The federal appellate rules identify two situations when a delayed notice of appeal

may be filed. First, Rule 4(a)(6) allows the Court to reopen the time to file an appeal if the

moving party did not receive notice of the judgment within 21 days of the entry of judgment.

Plaintiff’s counsel states that they received a copy of the notice of Judgment, both

electronically and by mail, within twenty-one days after entry; thus, Rule 4(a)(6) is

inapplicable. 

Second, a district court may extend a party’s time to file a notice of appeal if the party

satisfies Rule 4(a)(5)(A) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Rule 4(a)(5)(A) has

two requirements. First, the party must move for an extension of time no later than 30 days

after the time prescribed by Rule 4(a) expires. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A)(i). In other

words, the request for an extension must be filed within 60 days of the date judgment is

entered. United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 224 (1960). Second, Rule 4(a)(5)(A)(ii)

requires that the moving party show excusable neglect or good cause. Because Plaintiff

moved for an extension within 60 days of the date that Judgment was entered, his motion is

not untimely. Therefore, Plaintiff may receive an extension to file his notice of appeal if he

demonstrates good cause or excusable neglect.

In the Ninth Circuit, the standard for determining excusable neglect or good cause is

“a strict one.” See Marx v. Loral Corp, 87 F.3d 1049, 1053 (9th Cir. 1996). Typically,

extensions of time are granted only in “extraordinary cases where injustice would otherwise

result.” Oregon v. Champion Int’l Corp., 680 F.2d 1300, 1301 (9th Cir. 1982). The Supreme

Case 3:04-cv-00901-JAT Document 39 Filed 06/28/06 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 -

Court enumerated four factors to make this determination: “[1] the danger of prejudice to the

[non-movant], [2] the length of the 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 movant acted in good faith. Pioneer Investment Servs. Co. v.

Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993). Because the Plaintiff offered

no substantive reason why he should be given leave to file a delayed notice of appeal, the

Court will make the determination from the record and Defendant’s opposition brief. 

A. PREJUDICE AND LENGTH OF DELAY 

There is very little evidence that the non-moving party would be prejudiced if the

motion was granted. The motion seeking leave was filed only one week after the notice of

appeal deadline. The length of the delay is relatively minor; courts have given leave to

amend despite longer periods. In re Diet Drugs Products Liability Litigation, 401 F.3d 143,

154 (3rd Cir. 2005) (eight days delay was minimal delay that had no potential impact on the

proceedings). 

B. REASON FOR THE DELAY

The factor that weighs heavily against Plaintiff is the reason for the delay. Plaintiff

argues that he was not made aware of the judgment until after the date when the notice of

appeal should have been filed. However, the record indicates that Plaintiff’s counsel had

notice that Plaintiff wanted to appeal before the deadline. Judgment was entered February

21, 2006. The deadline to file the notice of appeal was March 23, 2006. Plaintiff states that

he notified his counsel of his desire to appeal on March 22, 2006. No excuse is offered

explaining why notice was not thereafter timely filed. Even the argument that counsel

miscalculated when the notice of appeal was due would not avail Plaintiff. Attorney error,

miscalculation, inadequate research, or other mistakes do not constitute extraordinary

circumstances justifying a delayed notice of appeal. See Fahy v. Horn, 240 F.3d 239, 244

(3rd Cir. 2001).

Case 3:04-cv-00901-JAT Document 39 Filed 06/28/06 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 -

C. GOOD FAITH 

The final factor to consider is the good faith of the moving party. In Feeder Line

Towing Service, Inc. v. Toledo P. & W. R. R. Co., the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held

that an attorney’s good faith, but mistaken, belief that a statute providing a longer period to

file notice of appeal was controlling constituted excusable neglect, thus allowing the delayed

notice of appeal. 539 F.2d 1107, 1109 (7th Cir. 1976). Here, Plaintiff’s counsel does not cite

any similar reason for the delay. They were not relying on other authority, such as a statute

or the Court’s statements, that caused them to delay. Therefore, Plaintiff cannot assert that

the delay was in good faith. 

D. CONCLUSION

Because Plaintiff can demonstrate no reason excusing him from timely filing his

notice of appeal, the Court refuses to grant Plaintiff leave to file a delayed notice of appeal.

Based upon the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Delayed Notice of Appeal

(Doc. #36) is denied. 

DATED this 27th day of June, 2006.

Case 3:04-cv-00901-JAT Document 39 Filed 06/28/06 Page 4 of 4