Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-06283/USCOURTS-ca10-16-06283-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Federal Insurance Company
Appellant
Star Insurance Company
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

STAR INSURANCE COMPANY, 

 Plaintiff Counter Defendant -

 Appellee,

v.

FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 

 Defendant Counterclaimant -

 Appellant.

No. 16-6283

(D.C. No. 5:14-CV-00716-L)

(W.D. Okla.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, HARTZ and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

This matter comes on for consideration of the defendant’s response to this court’s 

order of December 28, 2016. Upon consideration thereof, this appeal is dismissed for lack 

of jurisdiction. 

The order being appealed was entered by the district court on August 24, 2016. 

The last day to file an amended or new notice of appeal to appeal the prejudgment 

interest award and a new notice of appeal to appeal the award of attorney fees was 

September 23, 2016. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(i); Utah Women’s Clinic, Inc. v. 

Leavitt, 75 F.3d 564, 567 (10th Cir. 1995) (“The Supreme Court has held that the 

question of attorney’s fees and costs are collateral to and separate from a decision on the 

merits.”) (citation omitted).

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

January 26, 2017

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 16-6283 Document: 01019756792 Date Filed: 01/26/2017 Page: 1 
2

The notice of appeal, however, was not filed until September 26, 2016. After this 

court issued an order challenging the timeliness of the appeal, the defendant filed a 

motion for extension of time in the district court. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5). The district 

court denied the motion on November 30, 2016. No new notice of appeal was filed.

In response to this court’s order to show cause as to why this appeal should not be 

dismissed because the district court denied the extension of time, the defendant argues 

that the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion. However, because no 

appeal was filed from this order, this court cannot review it. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a) (“no 

appeal shall bring any judgment, order or decree in an action, suit or proceeding of a civil 

nature before a court of appeals for review unless a notice of appeal is filed . . . .”); Fed. 

R. App. P. 3(a)(1) (“An appeal permitted by law as of right from a district court to a court 

of appeals may be taken only by filing a notice of appeal with the district clerk within the 

time allowed by Rule 4.”); Bishop v. Corsentino, 371 F.3d 1203, 1206 (10th Cir. 2004) 

(an order ruling on a motion for extension of time is a separately appealable order). 

This court lacks jurisdiction to review the district court’s August 24 order as the 

notice of appeal was not filed within the time prescribed by statute, see 28 U.S.C. § 

2107(a) (a notice of appeal in a civil matter must be filed within 30 days of entry of 

judgment); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (same), and a timely notice of appeal in a civil 

case is both mandatory and jurisdictional. See Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 209, 213 

(2007).

Appellate Case: 16-6283 Document: 01019756792 Date Filed: 01/26/2017 Page: 2 
3

APPEAL DISMISSED. This order does not affect appeal no. 16-6098, the 

defendant’s appeal from the merits judgment. 

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Ellen Rich Reiter

 Jurisdictional Attorney

Appellate Case: 16-6283 Document: 01019756792 Date Filed: 01/26/2017 Page: 3