A fte r e x a m i n i n g th e b rie fs a n d th e re c or d , w e h av e c on c lu d ed th at ora l arg u m en t is * u n n ec es sa ry . T h u s, th e a p p ea ls a re su b m itt ed on th e b rie fs a n d th e re c or d . Se e F ED . R. A PP . P. 34(a)( 2). 

# United States Court of App eals Forthe Seventh Ci rcuit Chic ago, I lli nois 60604 Subm i tte d M ar ch 31, 20 09 * Deci ded M ar ch 31 2009 B efore F R ANK H. E AS T E R B R O O K, Chie fJ ud ge D IA N E P . W O O D , Cir cui t J ud ge D IA N E S. SY K E S, Cir cui t J ud ge N os. 08- 3428 & 08
- 3429 Inth e M at te r of: U N IT E D A IR L IN E S, IN C ., Debtor
- A pp el l ee.

A p p ea ls of: P E T E RHO F F MAN . A pp eal s fro m the U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct Court f orthe N or ther n Dis tr i ct o fI l l i noi s, Eas te r n Di vi si o n. N os. 07C 561 2 & 08 C 594 J o hn W . Da r r ah, J ud ge . O R D E R The se c o ns o l i dat ed appe al s ar i se fr o m Pe te r Hoffm an ’ s uns ucc es sful c l ai m i n the U n ite d A irlin es ba n kr u p tc y. H offm an w or ke d for U n ite d in g ro u n d op er at ion s fo r six m ont hs du ring 1992, earning $7per h ou r. H e resigned at the en d of his p robation ary p eriod. U nited m aintain s tha t H offm an resigned to avoid bein g fi red f or un satisfactory perf or m ance, but H offm an al l ege d i n a l ate r l aw sui t that he re si gned i n exchange f or 

### NON PREC EDENTIAL DI SPOSITIO N To be c ite donly inac c or d anc e w ith Fe d . R . Ap p . P. 32.1N os. 08- 3428 & 08
- 3429 Page 2

U ni ted’ s o ra l pro m i se to proce ss hi s a pp l i cati on f ora “co m peti ti ve tr ansfer ” t o a j ob as a pil ot. Unite d neverpro cess ed that appli cati on. The b re ach- of
- contr act case pro ceeded as a dive rs i ty sui t i n the So uthern Dist ri ct o fN ew Yor k unti l the ai rl i ne fi l ed f orChapter 11 bankr up tcy i n 200 2. Hoffm an then fi l ed a $ 2. 25 m i l l i on pro ofo fcl ai m i n the bankr up tcy c o ur t, a nd Uni t e d o b j e c t e d. T h e b an kr u p tc y c ou rt, ap p lyin g F ed er al R u le of C ivil P ro c ed u re 56 , see F ED . R. B ANK R . P. 9 01 4( c) , 7 05 6, di sa l l o wed Hoffm an ’ s cl ai m . T he c o ur t, r ul i ngfr o m the b en ch, expla i ned that H offm an needed to , but coul d not, es tabl i sh thathe woul d have be en hi re d as a pi l ot i fhi s a pp l i cati on had bee n proc ess ed. The c ourtr eas oned thatH offm an l acke d ev i den ce tha t he was qua l i fi ed to fl y f o r Uni te d a nd no te d tha t H o ffm ana dm i tt ed dur i ng hi s depo si ti o n tha t he was unqua l i fi ed an d tha t o th era i r l i ne s ha d r ej ec te d hi s appl i ca ti o ns f orpi l ot posi ti ons. The b ankr up tcy cour t a dvis ed H offm an thathe c oul d fi l e a n appeal to the di str i ct c ourtwithi n ten days a nd warned that the t i m e would “b egi n runni ng as so on as the o r deri s do ck et ed, s o y o u’ l l wantt o c he ck, i fy o u do wi sht o pur su e appe al, t o fi nd o utwhentha t do ck et i ngt ak es pl ac e. ” Hoffm anr epl i ed th athe “ unde r st o o d, ” an d the bankr up tcy cour t went on to expla i n that H offm an co uld a l so askthe cour t t o re consi der i ts r ul i ngunde r F ede r alRul es o fBa nk r upt cyPr o ce dur e 90 23 a nd 9 02 4. T ha t sa m e daythe cour t i ssued a w ri tte n j ud gm ent, wh i ch the cl er k o fthe bankr up tcy cour t dock ete d on Ju ly 2 , 200 7. Se e F ED . R. B ANKR . P. 90 21, 50 03. Ho ffmandi d n o tfi l e a n o t i c e o fa pp e a l wi thi n the a l l o t t e d t e n da y s . Ins t e a d, seve nteen days l ate r, H offm an fi l ed i n the bankr up tcy cour t what he t i tl ed as a m oti on t o re c on sid er . Se e F ED . R. B ANK R . P. 30 08 ( “A party i n i nter estm ay m ove f orr eco nsi derat i on o fa n o r dera l l o wi ngo r di sa l l o wi nga c l ai m a g ai ns t th e es ta te . ”) . Ho ffm ana r g ue d tha t he posse sse d add i ti onalev i dence es tabl i shi ng tha t Un i ted l owers i ts hi ri ng st andards wh en scr eeni ng i nter nal candi dates f orco m peti ti ve tr ansfer s a nd , thus, he woul d have be en hi re d as a pi l o t. Be ca us e H o ffm anfi l ed hi s m o ti o n mor e th ant enda y s afte r e nt r y o fthe und er l yi ng deci si on, the bankr up tcy cour t a nal yze d i t under Bankruptcy Rul e 9 024, wh i ch in c or p or at es Fe d er al R u le of C ivil P ro c ed u re 60 (b ). Se e Inre W ylie , 34 9 B. R. 20 4, 20 9- 11 ( B.A. P. 9th Cir . 20 06) ( expla i ni ng tha t Rul e 3 008 m oti ons ar e g ove rned byRule 60 ( b) i ffi l ed m or e than ten days a fterentr y o fj ud gm ent) . In i ts or alr uling, the cour t co ncl ud ed that H offm an di d not qual i fy f orr el i efunder Rul e 6 0( b) bec ause he di d not pro ff erany evi dence tha twa s u na v a i l a b l e wh e n hi s c l a i m was di s a l l o we d. H o ffm ant i m el y a ppea l ed th i s dec i si o n t o the di st r i ctc o ur t. OnAugus t 1, 2 00 7, he al so fi l ed a no ti ce o fappeal fro m the or der di sal l owing hi s cl ai m and m ove d fo r an extensi on o fti m e t o appeal fro m thatdeci si on. Hoffm an r eco gni zed thatthe deadli ne f or fi l i ng tha t a pp ealhad expir ed, but he ar gued that hi s f ai l ure to m eetthe deadli ne qual i fi ed as e xc us ab l e ne g l ec t. He ex pl ai ne d tha t he tho ug htUni te d woul d no ti fy hi m whentheN os. 08- 3428 & 08
- 3429 Page 3

cour t’ s o rderwas docket ed, and so he i gnor ed the m att erunti l J uly12 , wh en he l ear ned by o th ermean s th atthe o r derha d b ee n do ck et ed. And a t th atpo i nt, Hoffm ana dded, he “co ncl ud ed that a m oti on f orr eco nsi derat i on was the appropri ate st ep to ta ke. ” I n another or alr uling, the bankr up tcy cour t r efused to exte nd the appeal deadl i ne, r eas oni ng tha t H offm an’ s l ack ofdi l i gence was not excusabl e be cause he had bee n to l d about the pr oce ss f o r a ppea l i nga nd war ne d t o c he ckthe do ck et . Ho ffm anthe n fi l ed a se co nd a ppea l t o the d ist ric t c ou rtfrom th is d ec isio n . The dis tr i ct c ourtco nsol i dated the appeal s a nd upheld bo th o fthe bankr up tcy cour t’ s r ulings. Hoffm an now app eal s t o thi s co urt. Our re vi ew i s de no vo, m eani ng tha t w e e val uate the b ankr up tcy cour t’ s r ulings using the sa m e s tandard appli ed by the di str i ct c ou rt . I n re W i ese , 552 F.3d 58 4, 58 8 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ); I n r e KMar tCo r p. , 38 1 F . 3d 709, 71 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04) . Both deci si ons m ust be upheld unl ess the bankr up tcy cour t abused i ts di sc r et i o n. S ee I n re Pre si dent Casi nos, I nc. , 397 B .R . 468 , 470 -72 (B .A .P . 8th C ir. 20 08 ); I n re H M L I I, I nc. , 234 B . R . 67, 69 (B.A . P. 6th C ir. 1999). H offm an d oe s n ot d isp u te th at R u le 6 0(b ) gov er n ed h is m ot ion for re c on sid er at ion . A n d relie f u n d er R u le 6 0(b ) is an ex tr ao rd in ar y re m ed y. H ar rin gt on v. C ity of C h i. , 43 3 F. 3d 542, 54 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06) . As re l evanther e, a j ud gm ent m ay be s et asi de base d up on “new l y di sco ver ed evi dence that, with r eas onabl e di l i gence , co uld nothave bee n disc ove re d i n ti m e t o m ove f ora new tr i al . ” F ED . R. C IV . P . 60(b )(2) ; see H i cks v. M i dw est Transi t, I nc. , 53 1 F . 3d 467, 474 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) . Hoffm an’ s pro ff er ed evi dence, purport i ng to show that Unite d eval uates i nter nal candi dates usi ng l ower s tandards that he w oul d have sa ti sfi ed, was a va i l ab l e to Hoffm ana t su m m ar y j udg m en t an d was no t “n ew. ” And t o the extent that H offm an ar gued that the b ankr up tcy cour t i n i ts i ni ti alr uling had m i su nde r st o o d hi s co nt en ti o ns o r o ve r l o o k ed a m at er i ali ss ue o ff ac t, tho se c o nt en ti o ns w er e o utsi de the sco pe ofRule 60 ( b) . As w e hav e r epeate dly st ate d, Rule 60( b) i s no t a su b st itu te for a tim ely ap p ea l. Se e S tol l erv. Pure Fi shi ng I nc. , 528 F.3d 478 , 480 (7th C ir. 20 08 ), cer t. deni ed , 129 S. C t. 60 9 (2 00 8); Bel l v. Eastm an Kodak Co. , 21 4 F . 3d 798, 80 1 ( 7th C ir. 20 00 ); see al so I n re G. A . D., I nc. , 34 0 F .3d 33 1, 33 7 (6 th C ir. 20 03 ); Cent. Vt. Pub. S er v. C orp . v. H erbert, 34 1 F . 3d 186, 19 0 ( 2d Cir . 20 03) . Thus, the bankr up tcy cour t di d not abuse i ts di sc r et i o n i n de ny i ngHoffm an ’ s fi r stpo st -j udg m en t m o ti o n. N or did the ba nk rup tcy cou rt abu se its discretion in refusin g to exte nd H offm an ’s ti m e t o appeal fro m the or der di sal l owing hi s cl ai m . Rul e 8 002 ofthe Feder alRule s o f Bankruptcy Pr oce du re r equi re s that a not i ce o fappeal be fi l ed w i thi n ten days a fterentr y o f the b ankr up tcy cour t’ s deci si on. Und erthe bankr up tcy rul es, “t en days” m eans ten c ale n d ar d ay s, see F ED . R. B ANKR . P. 90 06( a) , and duri ng tha t per i od H offm an di d not fi l e a noti ce o fappeal o r tak e a ny st ep thatwould have tol l ed the deadli ne. Rul e 8 002 does author i ze the b ankr up tcy j ud ge to extend the deadli ne ev en afteri t e xpir es i fa m oti onN os. 08- 3428 & 08
- 3429 Page 4

es ta b lish in g “ ex c u sa b le n eg lec t” is m ad e w ith in th e n ex t t w en ty d ay s. F ED . R. B ANK R . P. 80 02 (c )(2) ; I n r e Kma r tCo r p. , 31 1 B. R. 84 4, 84 5- 46 ( N . D. I l l . 20 04) . The det er m i nati on o f excusabl e neg l ect i s “ an equi tabl e o ne, ta ki ng ac count o fal l r el evantci rcum sta nces surr ounding the par ty’ s o m i ssi on. ” Pi o ne e rI nv . S e r v s . Co . v . Br un s wi c kAs s o c s . Lt d. P ’sh ip , 507 U .S. 38 0, 39 5 (1 99 3); see Pri zevo i ts v. I nd . Bel l Tel . Co. , 76 F. 3d 132, 134 (7th Cir. 1996 ) ( concl ud i ng tha t S up re m e Cour t’ s defi ni ti on o f“e xcusabl e neg l ect” appli es “t h ro u gh ou t t h e fe d er al p ro c ed u ra l d om ain ”); I n re W ar ri ck, 2 78 B. R. 1 82 , 1 85
- 87( B. A. P. 9t h C ir. 20 02 ); I n re H M L I I, I nc. , 23 4 B. R. at71 . And i n thi s ca se H offm an’ s neg l ect w as not excusabl e. H o ffm anc o nt en ds th athe f ai l ed to t i m el y a ppea l b ec au se he mis unde r st o o d the appl i cabl e l aw. He al so a r g ue s th atthe b an k r upt cyc o ur t sh o ul d ha ve t ak eni nt o a cc o unt that the del ay w as bri ef, thathe a cted i n go od f ai th, and that U ni ted would notbe p rej u d ice d by allow in g t h e a p p ea l to p ro c ee d . Se e Pi onee r I nv. S er vs. Co. , 507 U .S. at 3 95 . A s the S up re m e Cour t has st ate d, how eve r, “i nadvert ence, i gnor ance ofthe rul es, o r m i sta kes co nstr uingthe rul es do not usual l y c onst i tute ‘ excusabl e’ negl ect. ” I d. at39 2. In d ee d , w e h av e n ot ed th at an “in ab ility or re fu sa l to re ad an d co m p re h en d th e p lain lan gu ag e o f th e fe d er al ru les ” c an n ev er co n st itu te ex c u sa b le n eg lec t. Pri zevo i ts , 76 F. 3d at 13 3 (q u ot at ion m ar ks an d cit at ion om itt ed ); see al so Easl ey v. Kir m see , 38 2 F . 3d 693, 69 7- 98 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04) ( hol ding that l i ti gants have duty o fdi l i gence to i nquir e about sta tus o fcas e an d to seek clari fi cation of cou rt rules); I n re W ar ri ck, 27 8 B. R. at18 7 ( hol ding that pro se debtor ’ s f ai l ure to check docketdi d not qual i fy a s e xcusabl e neg l ect suf fi ci ent t o j usti fy a n unti m el y a pp eal ) . Hoffm an’ s purpor ted m i sund er sta nd i ng, then, would have been w eak su ppo r t f o r a fi ndi ngo fe xc us ab l e ne g l ec t. I t was no s uppo r t ata l l, ho wev er, g i ve n tha t th e b a n k r u p t c y c o u r tc a u t i o n e d H o ffma n th a th e h a d j u s tt e n d a y s t o a c ta n d th a tth e t i me wo ul d b e g i n r un ni nga s s o o n a s a n o r de r wa s do c k e t e d. Acc o r di ng l y , b o th j ud g men t s a r e AF F I RMED.