Court Opinion

ID: 9409729
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-19 14:00:48.305147+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:52.963044
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-10392    Document: 37-1     Date Filed: 07/19/2023   Page: 1 of 4

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-10392
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       DONNA THOMAS,
                                                     Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       BLACK PEARL INVESTMENTS, LLC,
       d.b.a. Massage Envy Spa Woodstock,
       MALISSA CHAPMAN,

                                                 Defendants-Appellees.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Northern District of Georgia
USCA11 Case: 23-10392     Document: 37-1     Date Filed: 07/19/2023    Page: 2 of 4

       2                     Opinion of the Court                23-10392

                      D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cv-00318-JSA
                          ____________________

       Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Donna Thomas appeals the district court’s September 6,
       2022 entry of judgment and its December 2, 2022 order denying
       reconsideration of the judgment. Upon review of the record, the
       parties’ responses to the jurisdictional question, and appellees
       Black Pearl Investments, LLC and Malissa Chapman’s motion to
       dismiss Thomas’s appeal as untimely, we GRANT the appellees’
                                         1
       motion and DISMISS this appeal.
              First, Thomas’s notice of appeal is not timely to appeal the
       September 6, 2022 judgment. Thomas’s October 5, 2022 motion
       for reconsideration was untimely to toll the time to appeal the
       judgment. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A), (iv) (providing that a
       timely-ﬁled Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 motion tolls the ap-
       peal period); Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (providing that a Rule 59 motion
       must be ﬁled within 28 days after the entry of judgment). Accord-
       ingly, Thomas had until October 6, 2022, which was 30 days after
       the district court entered judgment, to appeal it. 28 U.S.C. §

             1
               Thomas’s motions for leave to file a response to the juris-
       dictional question out of time and re-submit her position regarding
       appellate jurisdiction are GRANTED. Her motion to correct the
       appendix is DENIED as moot.
USCA11 Case: 23-10392       Document: 37-1       Date Filed: 07/19/2023      Page: 3 of 4

       23-10392                Opinion of the Court                            3

       2107(a); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (providing that a notice of appeal
       in a civil case must be ﬁled within 30 days after entry of the judg-
       ment or order appealed from). However, Thomas did not ﬁle her
       notice of appeal until February 2, 2023.
               Second, Thomas’s notice of appeal is untimely to appeal the
       district court’s December 2, 2022 denial of her October 5, 2022 mo-
       tion for reconsideration. Her December 16, 2022 “Response to Or-
       der” did not eﬀectively seek reconsideration of the December 2 or-
       der and thus did not toll the time to appeal that order. See Fed. R.
       App. P. 4(a)(4)(A), (iv); Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); Finch v. Vernon, 845 F.2d
       256, 258 (11th Cir. 1988). Unlike Thomas’s October 5, 2022 motion
       for reconsideration, her “Response to Order” was not styled as a
       motion for reconsideration, did not expressly state that she was
       moving for reconsideration, expressed her intent to appeal to a
       higher court, and did not ask the district court to do anything other
       than remove a statement from the record as explained in her mo-
       tion for retraction. Additionally, Thomas ﬁled the “Response to
       Order” within the 14-day period that the December 2 order di-
       rected her to explain the relief she sought in her motion for retrac-
       tion, and she addressed the retraction motion in her response. Ac-
       cordingly, because Thomas’s “Response to Order” did not seek re-
       consideration of the district court’s December 2 order denying re-
       consideration, it was not a tolling motion, and she had until Janu-
       ary 3, 2023 to appeal from that order. Because Thomas did not ﬁle
       her notice of appeal until February 2, 2023, it also is untimely to
       appeal from the December 2 order.
USCA11 Case: 23-10392    Document: 37-1    Date Filed: 07/19/2023   Page: 4 of 4

       4                    Opinion of the Court              23-10392

             Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED as untimely.