Ahmad v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. et al

Filing 79

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST TO REOPEN THE TIME TO APPEAL signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 6/27/12. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

NADEEM AHMAD,

12
13
14
15
16

Case No. 2:09-CV-1200-JAM-DAD
Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST TO REOPEN THE TIME TO
APPEAL

v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al.,
Defendants.

/

On July 1, 2011, this Court granted Defendants Wells Fargo

17

Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) and First American Loanstar Trustee

18

Services’ (“First American”) Motion to Dismiss and summarily

19

dismissed Plaintiff Nadeem Ahmad’s (“Plaintiff”) Second Amended

20

Complaint (“SAC”) with prejudice (Doc. #68, “July 1, 2011 Order”).

21

The Court entered judgment on July 1, 2011.

22

Order and Judgment were served on Plaintiff by mail.

23

by Mail” entry, dated July 1, 2011.

24

That same day, the
See “Service

More than four months later, on November 23, 2011, Plaintiff

25

filed a Notice to Inform the Court (Doc. #70) in which the

26

Plaintiff argued that he did not receive the Court’s July 1, 2011

27

Order dismissing the SAC and had he received that Order, he would

28

have filed a Notice of Appeal and a Motion for Reconsideration.
1

1

The Court considers the Notice to Inform the Court as a request to

2

reopen the time to appeal or, alternatively, a request to file a

3

motion for reconsideration.

4

Plaintiff’s Notice to Inform (Doc. #71).

5

Plaintiff has continually missed deadlines and as a pro se

6

plaintiff, he is still bound by the rules of civil procedure so he

7

should not be able to file a late Motion for Reconsideration.

8
9

Defendant Wells Fargo objected to
Wells Fargo argued that

Plaintiff subsequently filed a Motion for Reconsideration
(Doc. #72) on December 6, 2011.

On December 13, 2011, the Court

10

denied the Motion for Reconsideration; it reaffirmed its prior

11

order (Doc. #73, “December 13, 2011 Order”).

12

appealed the July 1, 2011 Order on December 22, 2011 (Doc. #74).

13

Plaintiff then

The Court now considers whether it will grant Plaintiff’s

14

request to reopen the time to appeal the July 1, 2011 Order

15

pursuant to Plaintiff’s Notice to Inform the Court.

16

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6) states,

17

23

The district court may reopen the time to file an
appeal for a period of 14 days after the date when its
order to reopen is entered, but only if all the
following conditions are satisfied: (A) the motion is
filed within 180 days after the judgment or order is
entered or within 7 days after the moving party
receives notice of the entry, whichever is earlier;
(B) the court finds that the moving party was entitled
to notice of the entry of the judgment or order sought
to be appealed but did not receive the notice from the
district court or any party within 21 days after
entry; and (C) the court finds that no party would be
prejudiced.

24

The district court “has the discretion to deny a Rule 4(a)(6)

18
19
20
21
22

25

motion even when the rule’s requirements are met.”

26

Bryce Ranches, Inc., 316 F.3d 1066, 1069 (9th Cir. 2003).

27

Ninth Circuit has not held what factors the district court may

28

utilize in denying a Rule 4(a)(6) motion.
2

Arai v. Am.

Id. at 1070.

The

1

While there is no discussion concerning the Rule 4(a)(6)

2

factors, Plaintiff likely satisfied them – (A) he filed his motion

3

within 180 days of the judgment; (B) he was entitled to notice of

4

the entry of judgment and he claims he did not receive it;

5

(C) Wells Fargo has not argued it would be prejudiced by reopening

6

the time to appeal.

7

request to reopen the time to appeal in his Order to Inform the

8

Court due to its untimeliness and mootness.

9

Nonetheless, the Court denies Plaintiff’s

“[P]ro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure.”

10

Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995).

11

allowed four months to lapse after the date of judgment before

12

filing his Notice to Inform, which the Court considers as his

13

request to reopen the time to appeal or, alternatively, his request

14

for reconsideration.

15

must be filed with the district clerk within 30 days after entry of

16

the judgment); Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(a) (motions to alter a judgment

17

should be filed within 21 days after entry of the judgment).

18

Despite the late filing, the Court fully considered Plaintiff’s

19

Motion for Reconsideration and denied it on the merits on December

20

13, 2011 (Doc. #73).

21

Here, Plaintiff

See Fed.R.App.P. 4(a) (a notice of appeal

In addition to this late filing, Plaintiff has repeatedly

22

missed key deadlines throughout the litigation.

23

failed to oppose Wells Fargo’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #58).

24

Second, one day prior to the scheduled hearing on Wells Fargo’s

25

Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff filed an emergency motion to stay,

26

which the Magistrate Judge denied; the Magistrate Judge heard his

27

oral opposition to the motion to dismiss.

28

dated September 3, 2010; Findings and Recommendations (Doc. #62 at
3

First, Plaintiff

See “Minutes” entry,

1

2, n. 2).

Third, Plaintiff asked for an extension to object to the

2

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations; though untimely

3

the Magistrate Judge granted that request and ordered Plaintiff to

4

file or serve any objections on or before May 19, 2011 (Doc. #64).

5

Fourth, instead of properly filing objections to the Findings and

6

Recommendations, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Dismiss without

7

prejudice so that Plaintiff could refile his action with an

8

attorney, one week late, on May 26, 2011 (Doc. #65).

9

adopted the Findings and Recommendations in full and denied

The Court

10

Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss on July 1, 2011 (Doc. #68).

11

Plaintiff has shown a pattern of repeatedly missing important

12

procedural deadlines and the current Notice to Inform the Court is

13

no exception.

14

Thus,

Additionally, even if the Court were to consider the Notice to

15

Inform as a request to reopen time to appeal, the request is now

16

moot.

17

both to reopen time to appeal and to file a motion for

18

reconsideration, Plaintiff filed his Motion for Reconsideration.

19

The Court considered and denied the Motion for Reconsideration on

20

the merits in its December 13, 2011 Order.

21

Plaintiff could have timely appealed the Court’s December 13, 2011

22

Order.

23

1, 2011 Order, instead of appealing the Court’s December 13, 2011

24

Order (Doc. #74).

25

is no longer the final judgment, thus any appeal should have been

26

based on the December 13, 2011 Order and not on any previous order.

27

The Court finds that despite the late filing, Plaintiff’s

28

After Plaintiff filed his Notice to Inform, which requested

At that point,

Instead, on December 22, 2011, Plaintiff appealed the July

Because of the December 13, 2011 Order, the SAC

Motion for Reconsideration was fully considered; Plaintiff could
4

1

have properly appealed that Order.

Instead, Plaintiff elected to

2

appeal the July 1, 2011 Order, during the proper time frame to

3

appeal the December 13, 2011 Order.

4

addition to the untimely filing, the request to reopen the time to

5

appeal the SAC is moot because it is no longer the Court’s final

6

judgment and is thus moot.

7

Dated: June 27, 2012

The Court finds that in

____________________________
JOHN A. MENDEZ,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5