A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det er m i ned * unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det er m i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of t he ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue c o n s is te n t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 .1 . 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### F e b r u ary21,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT

CR A I G M A G RA FF, P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v . L O W E S H IW , IN C ., D efe ndant - A ppel l ee. N os . 05- 1537 & 06- 1031 ( D . C. N o. 03 - CV - 25 06 - M SK - CB S)

(D . C o lo .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e T AC HA , C hi ef J udge, O’ BRI EN , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es. Pl ai nt i ff Cra i g M agr aff appea l s t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s or der s deny i ng hi s Fed. R . A pp. P. 4( a) ( 5) m ot i on t o ext end the thi r t y - dayt i m e i n w hi ch t o fi l e a not i ce of appea l and al s o hi s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on, w hi ch the di s t r i ctcour tt r eat ed as a m o t i o n t o a l t e ro ra m e n d t h e j u d g m e n tp u r s u a n tt o F e d . R . C i v . P . 5 9 ( e ) . We a ffi r m.T hi s pl eadi ng w as capt i oned “Pl ai nt i ff’ s Fi r s tA m ended M ot i on for 1 E xt ens i on of Ti m e, N unc Pr o T unc. ” M agr aff had fi l ed a s ubs t ant i al l yi dent i cal ear l i erver s i on of t he mot i on on O ct ober31, 2005, w hi ch the di s t r i ctcour tdeni ed w i t ho ut pr ej ud i ce fo r fai l ure t o co m plyw i t h local rul es. W e have cons ol i dat ed M agr aff’ s appea l s num ber ed 05- 1537 ( D ece m ber2, 2 2005, not i ce of

appea l ) and 06- 1031 ( J anuary19, 2006, not i ce of appea l ) and d isp o se o f

b o th th ro u g h th is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t. -2- M ag raff’s c o m p lai n t al lege d v ariou s claim s ag ains t his fo rm er e m p loy er, d efen d an t L o w es H IW , Inc . (L o w es). T h e d istri ct co u rtg ran ted L o w es’ su m m ary ju d g m e n t m o tio n a n d e n ter e d ju d g m e n t o n S e p tem b e r 1 9 , 2 0 0 5 . P u rsu a n t to R u le 4 (a )(1 )(A ), M a g ra ff

h a d th irtyd a y s f

ro m th e e n tryo f

ju d g m e n t – th a t is, u n til O ct ober19, 2005 – t o fi l e hi s not i ce of appea l . H ow ever , M agr aff’ s couns el m i s t akenl ycal endar ed the due da t e as O ct ober20, 2005, and fi l ed the not i ce of a p p e a l o n e d a yla te . W e d is m is s e d th a t a p p e a l fo r l a c k o f ju ri s d ic tio n . Magr af

f v. Low es H

I W , Inc. , N o. 05- 1483 ( 10t h C i r . D ec. 30, 2005) ( or derdi s m i s s i ng ap p ea l) . A ft erdi s cover i ng t he docke t i ng err or , M agr aff m oved on N ovember 2, 2 0 0 5 , fo r an ex tens ion o f ti m e to fil e h is n o ti ce o f ap p ea l. T h e d istri ct co u rt 1 deni ed thi s m ot i on on N ovember 9, 2005. M agr aff t hen moved for r econs i der at i on on N ovember 23, 2005. O n D ece m ber2, 2005, he fi l ed a not i ce appea l i ng t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s N ovember 9, 2005 or der . T he di s t r i ctcour tdeni ed M agr aff’ s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on on J anuary10, 2006, and M agr aff fi l ed a not i ce a ppeal i ng t he deni al of r econs i der at i on on J anuary19, 2006. 2-3-

M agr aff ar gues t hatt he di s t r i ctcour terr oneous l ydeni ed hi s m ot i on foran ext ens i on underR ul e 4( a) ( 5) ( A ) , pur s uantt o w hi ch the di s t r i ctcour tm ayext end th e th ir ty-d a ya p p e a l tim e if a p a rt ys h o w s e x c u s a b le n e g le c t o r g o o d c a u s e . See B is hop v. C ors ent i no , 37 1 F . 3d 12 03 , 12 06 (10t h C i r. 20 04 ). In hi s m oti on s, M a g ra ff a ltern a telyb lam e d h is fa ilu re to file a tim e lyn o tice o f a p p e a l first o n h is couns el ’ s m i s appr ehens i on of t he dea dl i ne, and l at eron hi s couns el ’ s i l l nes s on th e a c tu a l d e a d lin e d a te fo r th e n o tice to b e filed . M a g ra ff e x p lain e d in h is m o tio n fo r re c o n sid e ra tio n th a t h is c o u n se l i nt ended t o fi l e the not i ce of appea l on t he d ue d at e, bu this cou nsel ’s i l l ness prevented him from do i ng so. M agraff al so i ndi cat ed thatt he onl yot herat t or neyfami l i arw i t h hi s cas e had notbeen t as ked w i t h pr epar i ng t he not i ce of appea l , and i n anyeventw as al s o unavai l abl e on the deadl i ne dat e. T hus , al t hough M agr aff admi t s hi s couns el m i s t akenl ybel i eved he had one a ddi t i onal dayt o fi l e the not i ce of appea l , he ar gues t hatt he del ay ul t i m at el yr es ul t ed notfr om t haterr or , butfr om couns el ’ s i l l nes s on t he ac tual d u e d a te, w h ich w a s b e y o n d h is o r h is c o u n se l’s c o n tro l. A di s t r i ctcour t ’ s or derdeny i ng a mot i on t o ext end the t i m e forfi l i ng a n o t i c e o f

a p p e a l i s i t s e l f

a n a p p e a l a b l e fi n a l j u d g me n t , wh i c h t h i s c o u r tr e v i e ws o n ly fo r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . Id. T h is co u rtli k ew ise rev iew s a d istri ct co u rt ’s ru lin g o n a R u le 5 9 (e ) m o tio n fo r a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . B r ow n v. P r es byt er i an Healthca re Servs. , 101 F. 3d 1324, 1331 ( 10t h C i r . 1996) . “U ndert he abus e of di s cr et i on s t andar d, a tr i al cour t ’ s deci s i on w i l l notbe di s turbed unl es s t he-4-

appel l at e courthas a def i ni t e and f

i r m convi ct i on t hatt he l ow ercour tm ade a cl earerr orof j udgm entorexce eded the bounds of perm i s s i bl e choi ce i n t he ci r cumst ance s . ” Id. T h e d istric t co u rt c o rre c tlyc o n sid e re d th e a p p ro p ria te fa c to rs in det er m i ni ng w hetherM agr aff demonst r at ed exc us abl e negl ectj us t i fy i ng an ext ens i on of t i m e: ( i ) t he dange rof pr ej udi ce t o t he non- m ovant ; ( i i ) t he l ength of t he del ayand i t s pot ent i al i m pacton j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs ; ( i i i ) t he r eas on fort he del ay , i ncl udi ng w hetheri tw as i n t he r eas onabl e contr ol of t he movant ; and (i v ) w h e th e r t h e m o v a n t a c te d in g o o d fa ith . See Bis hop , 3 7 1 F . 3 d a t1 2 0 6 . As t he di s t r i ctcour tnot ed, t he negl ectneed notar i s e fr om ci r cumst ance s bey ond t he m ovant ’ s contr ol , buti nadvert ence orm i s t ake i n cons t rui ng t he rul es does not u s u a lly c o n s titu te e x c u s a b le n e g le c t. See Ci t y of C hanut e v. Wi l l i am s Nat ur al G as C o. , 31 F. 3d 1041, 1046 ( 10t h C i r . 1994) . T he di s t r i ctcour tfound t hatt hr ee of t he fourfac t or s w ei ghed i n M agr aff’ s favor , butul t i m at el ydet er m i ned that M agraff’s proffered reasons for t he d el ayw ere not suffici ent t o est abli sh excus abl e negl ectundert he thi r d fac t or . T hi s cour thas hel d t hatt hi s i s “perhaps t he mosti m por t ants i ngl e fa ct or . ” Id. T h e a lt ern ati v e jus ti fica ti o n o f “ g o o d ca u se” u n d er R u le 4(a )(5) is a m o re n a rro w sta n d a rd , em p lo y e d w h e re th e “ e x c u sa b le n e g lec t” a n a ly sis is in a p p ro p ri a te . B is hop , 371 F. 3d at1207. G ood caus e ar i s es w her e ther e i s no fa u lt, e x c u sa b le o r o th e rw ise , to b e a ss e ss e d , an d th e n e e d fo r a n e x ten sio n re su lts-5-

f ro m fo rc e s o u ts id e th e c o n tr o l o f th e m o v a n t. Id. T he di s t r i ctcour tdi d notfi nd t hatt he ci r cumst ance s of M agr aff’ s del aycons t i tut ed good ca us e. I n deny i ng M agr aff’ s m ot i ons foran ext ens i on and forr econs i der at i on, t he d i s t r i c tc o u r tn o t e d i t s a s s u m p t i o n t h a ta t t o r n e ys p r e fe rt o fi l e p l e a d i n g s e a r l y, r athert han on the dat e theyar e due. T he di s t r i ctcour tr eas oned, “The fac tt hat u n ex p ec ted c ir cu m stan ce s fre q u en tl yfru str ate the se in tention s is w h ythe C o u rt m us texami ne notw hethert he att or neyi nt ended t o t ake s om e ac tt hatw oul d have r es ul t ed i n a t i m el yfi l i ng, butr ather , exami ne the ac tual r eas on w hyt he dea dl i ne w as notm et . ” A pl t . A pp. at92- 93. T he di s t r i ctcour tconcl uded thatt he ac tual re a so n w h yth e n o tice o f a p p e a l w a s n o t ti m e lyfiled w a s c o u n se l’s e rro r in ca lend aring the d ea d li n e. Itd ist ing u ishe d circu m stan ce s w h ere the a tt o rne y ’s ill n e ss d ire c tlyc a u se d a sc h e d u lin g e rro r o r p re v e n ted a tim e lyfili n g “ in acc or dance w i t h t he att or ney ’ s r ecogni t i on of t he corr ectdeadl i ne. ” Id. a t 9 3 . T he di s t r i ctcour tfound t hatcouns el ’ s i l l nes s w as s i m pl ycoi nci dent al t o t he cal endar i ng err orand thatt he ci r cumst ance s i n t hi s cas e cons t i tut ed nei t her excus abl e negl ectnorgood caus e. W e fi nd t hatt he di s t r i ctcour tpr oper l yappl i ed the s t andar ds for determ i ning w hethert here w as excu sabl e neg l ector goo d cau se and d i d n ot abuse i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng M agr aff’ s m ot i on foran ext ens i on and mot i on for r econs i der at i on. W e not e thatM agr aff’ s couns el del i ber at el yw ai t ed unt i l t he end of t he thi r t y - dayper i od t o fi l e the not i ce of appea l , i ncr eas i ng t he r i s k t hat-6-

unfor es een e vent s , i ncl udi ng i l l nes s , m i ghti nt er fer e w i t h hi s abi l i t yt o m eett he deadl i ne. T he r ecor d does nots how t hatcouns el w as i l l fort he ent i r e per i od dur i ng w hi ch the appe al coul d have be en fi l ed. M or eover , t he not i ce of appea l r equi r ed byFed. R . A pp. P. 3( c) i s a s i m pl e documentt o pr epar e, w hi ch does not re q u ire p a rticu lar fa m ili a rityw ith th e c a se . N o n e th e les s, th e re is n o in d ica tio n in th e re c o rd th a t M a g ra ff ’s c o u n se l m a d e a n ye ffo rt, eith e r b e fo re o r d u rin g h is ill n e ss , to s e e k th e a ss ista n c e o f o th e r a tto rn e y s in h is o ff ice , o r e v e n h is s e c re ta ry, to c o m p le te th e filin g o n o r b e fo re h is in te n d e d d a y . See, e. g. , G i bbons v. Uni t ed Stat es , 3 1 7 F . 3 d 8 5 2 , 8 5 5 (8th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) (affirm ing d istri ct co u rt ’s deni al of ext ens i on r eques tbas ed upon couns el ’ s i l l nes s , w her e the i l l nes s di d not s pan the ent i r e appe al per i od and couns el t ook no s t eps t o have c as es m anage d by ot her s dur i ng i l l nes s ) . O n t hi s r ecor d, w e do notfi nd an abus e of di s cr et i on i n t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s concl us i on t hatt he ca l endar i ng err orcaus ed the del ayand di d not cons t i tut e exc us abl e negl ectorgood caus e t o j us t i fyan ext ens i on t o fi l e the n o tice o f

a p p e a l. W e a ck n o w ledg e tha t th is i s a h arsh resu lt ; abu se o f d iscreti o n is, h o w ev er, a v e ryd e fe re n tial sta n d a rd o f re v iew . W h e n w e a p p lyth is s tan d a rd , “w e d e fe r to t he tr i al cour t ’ s j udgm entbeca us e of i t s fi r s t - hand abi l i t yt o vi ew t he w i t nes s or evi dence and as s es s cr edi bi l i t yand pr obat i ve val ue. ” Mo o th a rt v . B e ll , 21 F. 3d 1 4 9 9 , 1 5 0 4 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ) H ere , w e d o n o t fi n d that the d istri ct co u rt ’s j udgm entw as “mani fes t l yunr eas onabl e. ” Id.-7-

T he j udgm entof t he di s t r i ctcour ti s aff i r m ed.

E n tered fo r t h e C o u rt T err ence L . O ’ B r i en C i r cui tJ udge