2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 10-7-2010 

# In re: R ich ard M ull ark ey P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 10-3712

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " In r e: R ich ar d M ull arkey " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 461. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/461BL D- 3 0 3 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 10- 3712

___________ I n r e : RI CH AR D M UL L AR KE Y, D ebt or RI CH AR D M UL L AR KE Y, A ppel l ant

v. L E O N A R D T A M B O E R ; L E S L IE T A M B O E R ; JO H N M . M C K E N N A ; D A V ID G H E R L O N E ;

S T E VE N P . KAR T Z M AN

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 09- cv- 04518, 05- cv- 02010 & 05- cv- 02594) D i stri ctJudg e: H on orabl e D i ckinson R . D ebev ois e

____________________________________ Subm i t t ed forPoss i bl e Sum m aryA ct i on P u rs u a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6

Sept ember30, 2010 B efor e: R E N D E L L , C H A G A R E S A N D V A N A SK I E , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed O ct ober7, 2010 )

_________ OP I NI ON

_________2

P E R C UR I AM Th e Di s t r i c tCo u r td i s mi s s e d Ri c h a r d M u l l a r k e y ’ s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l f r o m a B ankrupt cyC our tor deron Sept ember11, 2009. M ul l arkeyfi l ed a mot i on for r econs i der at i on on Sept ember22, 2009, w hi ch the D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed on D ece m ber24, 2009. I n t he s ame or der , t he D i s t r i ctC our taff i r m ed the B ankrupt cyC our t ’ s or derand di s m i s s ed w i t h pr ej udi ce M ul l arkey ’ s cl ai m s i n t hei rent i r ety . O n February5, 2010, M u lla rk e yf

ile d a n o tic e o f

a p p e a l, s p e c if

y in g a D is tr ic t C o u rt o rd e r o f J a n u a ry 8 , 2 0 1 0 . As n o s u c h o r d e re x i s t s , t h e Di s t r i c tCo u r tc o n s t ru e d i ta s a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l f r o m th e t wo e a rl ie r o rd e rs . U p o n o u r re c e ip t o f

th e n o tice o f

a p p e a l in th a t ca se , w e n o tifie d M u llark e yth a t h is appea l w as s ubj ectt o di s m i s s al forj ur i s di ct i onal defe ctbeca us e i tappea r ed t o be unt i m el yfi l ed. I n r es pons e, on A pr i l 27, 2010, M ul l arkeyfi l ed a r eques tforan ext ens i on o f ti m e to f

il e h is no ti ce o f a p p ea l i n the D istri ct C o u rt . Init ial ly , the D istri ct C o u rt gr ant ed the mot i on. T he A ppel l ees fi l ed a mot i on forr econs i der at i on i n t he D i s t r i ct C our t . T he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed thei rm ot i on, and vac at ed i t s or dergr ant i ng t he e x ten sio n o f

tim e , an d d e n ied M u llark e y ’s m o tio n f o r a n e x ten sio n o f

tim e a s u n tim e ly f ile d . M u lla rk e ya p p e a ls f ro m th a t o rd e r. W e h av e jurisdicti o n p u rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e re v iew the D istri ct C o u rt ’s d e c is io n to d e n ya n e x te n s io n o f tim e to f ile a n o tic e o f

a p p e a l f o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n .3

S e e R a m se u r v . B e y e r, 9 2 1 F .2 d 5 0 4 , 5 0 6 n .2 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 0 ). U p o n re v iew , w e w ill s um m ar i l yaff

i r m t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derbeca us e no s ubs t ant i al ques t i on i s pr es ent ed o n a p p e a l. S e e L .A .R . 2 7 .4 ; I .O .P . 1 0 .6 . T h e D istri ct C o u rtp rop erlyrec o n side red it s d ec isi o n an d d en ied M u ll ark ey ’s m ot i on foran ext ens i on of t i m e t o fi l e a not i ce of appea l . A di s t r i ctcour tm ayext end the t i me t o f i l e a n o t i c e o f

a p p e a l i f

“ ( i ) a p a r t ys o mo v e s n o l a t e rt h a n 3 0 d a y s a f t e rt h e t i me pr es cr i bed byt hi s R ul e 4( a) expi r es ; and ( i i ) r egar dl es s of w hetheri t s m ot i on i s fi l ed b e f o re o r d u rin g th e 3 0 d a y s a f ter th e tim e p re sc rib e d b yth is R u le 4 (a ) e x p ire s, th a t p a rty s how s excus abl e negl ectorgood caus e. ” Fed. R . A pp. P. 4( a) ( 5) . I n t hi s cas e, M ul l arkey fi l ed hi s r eques tforan ext ens i on on A pr i l 27, 2010, m or e than 30 day s aft erhi s not i ce of a p p e a l s h o u ld h a v e b e e n f ile d p u rs u a n t to F e d e ra l R u le o f A p p e lla te P ro c e d u re 4 (a )( 1 ). H is u n tim e ly re q u e s t w a s p ro p e rl yd e n ie d .