Opinion ID: 1027813
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: Federal Rule of Appellate Practice 4(a)(6) states that a district court “may” grant a motion to reopen, therefore, the exercise of this permissive authority is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Nguyen v. Southwest Leasing & Rental Inc., 282 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Carter v. Tate & Lyle, 58 Fed. Appx. 12, 13 (4th Cir. 2003) (unpublished). A district court abuses its discretion when it relies on clearly erroneous findings of fact, when it improperly applies the law, or when it uses an erroneous legal standard. See Thorn v. Jefferson Pilot Life Ins. Co., 445 F.3d 311, 317 (4th Cir. 2006) (“A district court per se abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law or clearly errs in its factual findings.”). Appellees argue that Herman asserted no valid excuse for his failure to receive the entry of the judgment and thus the district court abused its discretion in granting his request to reopen. However, the district court found that “plaintiff’s counsel represents that he never received notice of the Entry of Judgment” and that “no party will be prejudiced by reopening the time period for appeal.” J.A. 121. Herman properly averred the reasons for which he argues that he did not receive timely notice of entry of judgment, and did so within seven days after he alleges that he did receive 8 actual notice. Herman also properly noted an appeal within fourteen days of the district court’s order granting the motion to reopen. It was within the court’s discretion to find that the moving party did not receive notice and that no party would be prejudiced. We therefore conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the motion to reopen. Accordingly, this Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal.