Court Opinion

ID: 9892802
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-24 21:00:55.080138+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:42:27.677323
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1482      Doc: 13        Filed: 10/23/2023    Pg: 1 of 4

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                              UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                  FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1482

        EUN O. KIM; CHIN KIM; DANIEL I. KIM; GOOM Y. PARK; GYEASOOK
        KIM; KAP J. CHUNG; LENA KIM; MI YOUNG KIM; MYONG HO NAM;
        YOUN HWAN KIM; YOUNG JOO KANG; ALAN YOUNG CHENG; SHUI QUI
        ZHANG; EVA YIHUA TU; HELENA LEE; KI N. LEE; SUN H. LEE; KWANG
        BAG LEE; KWANGJON KIM; NAM DOLL HUH,

                            Plaintiffs - Appellants,

                     and

        AMY HSIANG-CHI TONG; HONG S. CHUNG,

                            Plaintiffs,

                     v.

        PARCEL K- TUDOR HALL FARM LLC,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
        Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:09-cv-01572-PJM)

        Submitted: October 19, 2023                                  Decided: October 23, 2023

        Before KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1482      Doc: 13         Filed: 10/23/2023    Pg: 2 of 4

        Eun O. Kim, Chin Kim, Daniel I. Kim, Goom Y. Park, Gyeasook Kim, Kap J. Chung, Lena
        Kim, Mi Young Kim, Myong Ho Nam, Youn Hwan Kim, Young Joo Kang, Alan Young
        Cheng, Shui Qui Zhang, Eva Yihua Tu, Helena Lee, Ki N. Lee, Sun H. Lee, Kwang Bag
        Lee, Kwangjon Kim, Nam Doll Huh, Appellants Pro Se. Stephen Ari Metz, OFFIT
        KURMAN, PA, Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1482      Doc: 13         Filed: 10/23/2023     Pg: 3 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Appellants—a group of 20 individual investors—seek to appeal the district court’s

        order granting Appellee Parcel K- Tudor Hall Farm LLC’s motion to reopen and granting

        in part Appellee’s motion for authority to transfer, as well as the court’s subsequent order

        denying Appellants’ motion to reconsider that order. We dismiss the appeal in part and

        affirm in part.

               In civil cases, parties have 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final

        judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court

        extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under

        Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a

        jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The district

        court entered its order granting the motion to reopen and granting in part the motion for

        authority to transfer on August 1, 2022. Appellants filed their motion to reconsider on

        March 16, 2023—more than 28 days after entry of the underlying order—and filed the

        notice of appeal on April 27, 2023. Because Appellants failed to timely appeal or to obtain

        an extension or reopening of the appeal period as to the August 2022 order, we dismiss the

        appeal as to that order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(vi); Aikens v. Ingram, 652 F.3d 496,

        501 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (“[A]n appeal from denial of Rule 60(b) relief does not bring

        up the underlying judgment for review.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

               As to the district court’s order denying Appellants’ motion to reconsider, we review

        for abuse of discretion the denial of such motions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). See Aikens,

        652 F.3d at 501. “A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time”

                                                     3
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1482         Doc: 13     Filed: 10/23/2023     Pg: 4 of 4

        after entry of the underlying judgment or order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). Upon review,

        we discern no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of Appellants’ motion. We

        therefore affirm the district court’s order. Kim v. Nyce, No. 8:09-cv-01572-PJM (D. Md.

        Mar. 29, 2023).

              We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

        adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

        decisional process.

                                                                             DISMISSED IN PART,
                                                                             AFFIRMED IN PART

                                                    4