Opinion ID: 65022
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Timeliness of Appeals

Text: Appellants argue that they filed timely appeals from the district courts' judgments and we have de novo review of those judgments. Appellees argue that at most we have authority to review the denial of Appellants' post-judgment motions under Rule 59 or Rule 60. We first consider the timeliness of Appellants' appeals.
FED. R.APP. PROC. 4(a)(1) provides the general rule that in a civil case, the notice of appeal ... must be filed with the district clerk within 30 days after the judgment or order appealed from is entered. Under Rule 4(a)(4)(A), the timely filing of certain motions, including a FED.R.CIV.P. 59 motion to alter or amend the judgment, makes the time for filing an appeal run[ ] for all parties from the entry of the order disposing of the last such remaining motion. In Arceneaux, it is undisputed that Appellants' Rule 59(e) motion was timely filed on April 17, 2008 and was decided on May 14, 2008. Thus, Appellants' filing of the notice of appeal in Arceneaux on May 21, 2008 was timely and permits us to review both the April 3, 2008 judgment and the denial of the Rule 59 and Rule 60 motions.
Appellants in Harrington and Benit did not file a Rule 59 motion, only a Rule 60 motion. Unlike a Rule 59 motion, a motion for relief under Rule 60 extends the time for filing an appeal only if the motion is filed no later than 10 days after the judgment is entered. Rule 4(a)(4)(A)(vi). Because Appellants did not file their Rule 60 motion until nearly two months after entry of the underlying judgment, they could not rely on that motion to extend the time for filing an appeal. Instead, they rely on the district court's order extending the time for appeal. The district court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal as provided by Rule 4(a)(5). However, Rule 4(a)(5)(C) expressly provides: No extension under this Rule 4(a)(5) may exceed 30 days after the prescribed time [for filing an appeal under Rule 4(a)] or 10 days after the date when the order granting the motion is entered, whichever is later. [7] Appellants timely moved for an extension on Saturday, February 23, 2008, within the prescribed time for filing an appeal under Rule 4(a)(5). The district court granted a 30 day extension on Monday, February 25, extending Appellants' time to appeal until Wednesday, March 26, 2008, the date Appellants filed their notice of appeal. State Farm presented no argument in their brief that the appeal was untimely, and at oral argument State Farm conceded that the notice of appeal in both cases was timely in light of the extension. State Farm is correct. The judgment in Harrington and the amended judgment in Benit was entered on January 24, 2008. Under FED. R.APP. PROC. 26(a)(3), because the prescribed 30-day period for filing an appeal would have ended on a Saturday, February 23, 2008, the last day was deemed to fall on Monday, February 25, 2008. Under Rule 4(a)(5)(C), the court was therefore authorized to extend the time to appeal 30 days beyond that date, or until Wednesday, March 26, 2008, which it did. The notice of appeal, which was filed on March 26, was therefore timely under Rule 4.
For the above stated reasons, we conclude that the notices of appeal in Harrington and Benit are timely under the district court's order granting an extension of time, and Appellants in Arceneaux timely filed their notice of appeal after denial of a timely filed Rule 59 motion. We therefore have full appellate review over all underlying judgments and the post-judgment motions.