Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-00-07078/USCOURTS-caDC-00-07078-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carr Park, Inc.
Petitioner
Fasil Tesfaye
Respondent

Document Text:

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued October 10, 2000 Decided October 31, 2000

No. 00-7078

Carr Park, Inc.,

Defendant-Petitioner

v.

Fasil Tesfaye,

Plaintiff-Respondent

On Petition for Permission to File an

Interlocutory Appeal

(99cv02561)

M. Carter DeLorme argued the cause for petitioner. With

him on the briefs was William G. Miossi.

William Payne argued the cause and filed the briefs for

resondent.

Before: Edwards, Chief Judge, Silberman and Garland,

Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed Per Curiam.

USCA Case #00-7078 Document #553588 Filed: 10/31/2000 Page 1 of 5
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Per Curiam: Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. s 1292(b) (1994), defendant petitions for leave to appeal an order of the district

court denying defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's Title

VII claim. Defendant's petition was untimely, therefore we

dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

I.

Plaintiff, Fasil Tesfaye, was employed by defendant, Carr

Park, Inc., as a facilities manager. On November 12, 1998,

Carr Park fired Tesfaye. Subsequently, Tesfaye filed a

charge with the EEOC, on April 20, 1999, claiming that Carr

Park had discriminatorily fired him based on his race and

national origin in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. s 2000e et

seq. On June 28, 1999, sixty-nine days after Tesfaye filed his

charge, the EEOC issued to him a right to sue letter and a

document entitled "dismissal and notice of rights." The

EEOC stated that it was dismissing the charge and terminating its investigation because it was "unable to conclude that

the information obtained establishes violations of the statutes." The notice informed Tesfaye that he had 90 days in

which to file his claim in district court. Tesfaye then filed

suit in federal district court on September 27, 1999.

Carr Park moved to dismiss the claim because Tesfaye had

not waited 180 days after filing his charge with the EEOC

before bringing suit in federal court. Section 2000e-5(f)(1)

specifically states that a charging party may file suit if the

charge is "dismissed by the Commission, or if within one

hundred and eighty days from the filing ... the Commission

has not filed a civil action." 42 U.S.C. s 2000e-5(f)(1) (1994)

(emphasis added). Carr Park argues that notwithstanding

the statutory language, our opinion in Martini v. Federal

National Mortgage Ass'n, 178 F.3d 1336, 1347 (D.C. Cir.

1999), held that the 180-day requirement is uniform even if

the Commission has dismissed the charge earlier. The district judge, however, read Martini in harmony with the

statutory wording,1 but recognizing that certain language in

__________

1 Martini struck down an EEOC regulation asserting authority to

authorize a private party to sue before 180 days even if a charge

had not been dismissed. Id.

USCA Case #00-7078 Document #553588 Filed: 10/31/2000 Page 2 of 5
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

our opinion could be seen as in tension with the plain wording

of the statute, certified the order for interlocutory appeal

under 28 U.S.C. s 1292(b). He thought that the correct

application of Martini was a controlling question as to which

there was substantial ground for difference of opinion and

that immediate appeal of the issue might materially advance

the termination of the litigation.

Subsequently, Carr Park filed a petition for permission to

appeal, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. s 1292(b), on February 16,

2000. Carr Park conceded that it filed the requisite petition

outside of the 10-day statutory filing period. But it moved

for leave to file the untimely petition, arguing excusable

neglect because counsel did not have an opportunity to review

the district court's order until he returned from an out-oftown trial on February 14, the date the petition was due.

And, Carr Park argued, any prejudice to Tesfaye would be de

minimis because the petition was filed only two days late.

Tesfaye opposed neither Carr Park's motion nor its petition

for leave to file an interlocutory appeal. The court referred

the motion to the merits panel and directed the parties to

include in their briefs arguments concerning the timeliness of

the petition for permission to appeal.

II.

Although both parties ask us to excuse the untimeliness of

the petition, this issue calls into question our jurisdiction and

we must address it. See Beckett v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, 59

F.3d 1276, 1278 n.2 (D.C. Cir. 1995); see also City of New

Orleans v. SEC, 137 F.3d 638, 639 (D.C. Cir. 1998).

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 5(a)(2) states that a

petition for permission to appeal "must be filed within the

time specified by the statute" authorizing the appeal. In this

case, interlocutory appeal of a certified order is permitted

under 28 U.S.C. s 1292(b), and that statute provides that the

court of appeals may "in its discretion, permit an appeal to be

taken from such order, if application is made to it within ten

days after the entry of the order." 29 U.S.C. s 1292(b)

(emphasis added). Although we have yet to decide the

USCA Case #00-7078 Document #553588 Filed: 10/31/2000 Page 3 of 5
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

question, all of the circuits to address the issue have concluded that section 1292(b)'s 10-day filing period is jurisdictional.

See Myles v. Laffitte, 881 F.2d 125, 127 (4th Cir. 1989) (listing

cases); see also 16 Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller, &

Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure s 3929,

at 376 & n.39 (2d ed. 1996) (stating that no appeal may be

taken if petition for permission to appeal is filed outside of

the 10-day period specified in the statute).2 We agree that

section 1292(b)'s filing period is jurisdictional. Failure to file

the petition for permission to appeal within the 10-day period

provided by the statute deprives us of jurisdiction over the

appeal.

Carr Park asks us to find excusable neglect and permit the

untimely petition. We are without authority to do so: no

exception to the time for filing is set out in the statute and

the plain language of the Federal Rules precludes us from

enlarging the statutory time for filing a petition for permission to appeal. The language of Rule 5 is mandatory. See

Fed. R. App. P. 5(a)(2). And although Federal Rule of

Appellate Procedure 26(b)(1) states that a court for good

cause may extend the time prescribed by the rules, the rule

expressly states that the court may not extend time for the

filing of a petition for permission to appeal. Fed. R. App. P.

26(b)(1); see also Myles, 881 F.2d at 126; Aparicio v. Swan

Lake, 643 F.2d 1109, 1111 (5th Cir. 1981); cf. National Black

Media Coalition v. FCC, 760 F.2d 1297, 1299 (D.C. Cir. 1985)

(dismissing untimely petition to appeal agency decision because statute makes no exception for excusable failure and

Fed. R. App. P. 26(b)(2) explicitly prohibits court from enlarging time for filing a notice of appeal from an agency order).

Accordingly, we deny Carr Park's motion for leave to file a

petition for permission to appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

__________

2 See, e.g., Tranello v. Frey, 962 F.2d 244, 248 (2d Cir. 1992);

Rodriguez v. Banco Central, 917 F.2d 664, 668-69 (1st Cir. 1990);

In re Benny, 791 F.2d 712, 719-20 (9th Cir. 1986); Local P-171,

Amalgamated Meat Cutters v. Thompson Farms Co., 642 F.2d

1065, 1068 (7th Cir. 1981).

USCA Case #00-7078 Document #553588 Filed: 10/31/2000 Page 4 of 5
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

s 1292(b) and dismiss Carr Park's petition for permission to

appeal.

So ordered.

USCA Case #00-7078 Document #553588 Filed: 10/31/2000 Page 5 of 5