Kamdem-Ouaffo v. Idahoan Foods LLC

Filing 49

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER. IT IS ORDERED: Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File an Amended Appeal (Dkt. 46-1) is GRANTED. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (km)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
RICKY KAMDEN-OUAFFO,
Case No. 4:15-cv-00129-BLW
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

v.
IDAHOAN FOODS LLC,
Defendant.

INTRODUCTION
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File an
Appeal (Dkt. 46-1). For the reasons stated below, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s Motion.
BACKGROUND
On March 20, 2017, this Court granted summary judgment and entered judgment
in favor of the Defendant in this action. Mar. 20, 2017 Mem. Decision and Order, Dkt.
33; Judgment, Dkt. 34. Plaintiff timely filed a motion on April 13, 2017, which the Court
construed as a motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59 or for relief from
judgment under Rule 60. Pl.’s Motion, Dkt. 38. The Court denied the motion on February
12, 2018. Feb. 12, 2018 Mem. Decision and Order, Dkt. 44. The Clerk mailed the Feb.
12, 2018 Memorandum Decision and Order to the address listed for Plaintiff in the
Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF), but the mailing was returned undelivered on February

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

16, 2018. Third Return Mail, Dkt. 45. Two previous mailings to the same address had
also been returned undelivered Return Mail, Dkt. 41; Second Return Mail, Dkt. 43.
Plaintiff contacted the Court on March 14, 2018 seeking an update on his motion
to reconsider, and learned that the motion had been denied. See Motion to Extend, Dkt,
46-1. That same day, Plaintiff mailed his Notice of Appeal, and attached a Motion to
Extend Time to File an Appeal. Notice of Appeal, Dkt. 46; Motion to Extend, Dkt. 46-1.
The Notice and Motion were filed two days later, on March 16, 2018. Id. Plaintiff’s
Notice of Appeal contained a directive to forward paper mail to a new address. See
Notice, Dkt. 46.
LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4 sets the time to file a notice of appeal as no
later than thirty days after entry of final judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). Where a
party has filed a timely motion under Rule 59 or Rule 60, the time to file an appeal runs
for all parties from the entry of an order disposing of that motion. Id. 4(a)(4)(A). “[T]he
timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement” for which
this Court lacks the authority to create equitable exceptions. Bowles v. Russel, 551 U.S.
205, 213 (2007). A district court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal, however,
if a party so moves within thirty days after the deadline to file a notice of appeal, and the
party demonstrates excusable neglect or good cause for the delay. Fed. R. App. P.
4(a)(5)(A).

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

Determining whether to extend the time to file a notice of appeal on the grounds of
“excusable neglect” is subject to the discretion of the Court, after applying a four-part
balancing test. See Pincay v. Andrews, 389 F.3d 853, 855 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Pioneer
Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380 (1993)).
The relevant factors to consider include “(1) the danger of prejudice to the non-moving
party, (2) the length of delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, (3) the
reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the
movant, and (4) whether the moving party’s conduct was in good faith.” Id. (citing
Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 395). “Although inadvertence, ignorance of the rules, or mistakes
construing the rules do not usually constitute ‘excusable’ neglect, it is clear that
‘excusable neglect’ . . . is a somewhat ‘elastic concept’ and is not limited strictly to
omissions caused by circumstances beyond the control of the movant.” Pioneer, 507 U.S.
at 392.
ANALYSIS
The time to file an appeal in this case runs from the February 12, 2018 Order
disposing of Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A). Thus, the
deadline for Plaintiff to file his notice of appeal was March 14, 2018, which he missed by
two days. See Notice, Dkt. 46 (filed March 16, 2018). Plaintiff’s motion to extend the
time to file an appeal, however, was filed within thirty days of the March 14, 2018
deadline. See Motion to Extend, Dkt, 46-1 (filed March 16, 2018). Thus, the Court has

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3

jurisdiction to extend the time to file an appeal up to thirty days, upon a showing of
excusable neglect or good cause. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A).
Plaintiff offers no explanation for the delay other than that he “had not been
informed that there was a final decision on the case.” See Motion to Extend, Dkt, 46-1.
That Order was mailed to Plaintiff at the address listed at that time in the Notice of
Electronic Filing (NEF), however, and was returned undeliverable. See Third Return
Mail, Dkt. 45. Plaintiff offers no explanation for why mail sent to him at the address he
provided was returned undeliverable, and instead simply asks the Court to forward future
paper mailings to a P.O. Box.
The Court will assume for these purposes, given the lack of evidence to the
contrary, that Plaintiff could have avoided this situation by ensuring that the mailing
address listed for him in the NEF was up to date and could receive mail. Even assuming,
however, that Plaintiff did not receive notice of the Order due to circumstances under his
control, such carelessness may be “excusable” under Pioneer. Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 392;
see also Pincay, 389 F.3d 855-56 (finding that where the delay was small, there was no
prejudice, and no bad faith, carelessness alone does not render neglect inexcusable).
Indeed, after applying the Pioneer factors, “a delay might be excused even where the
reasons for the delay are not particularly compelling.” Id at 858. (quoting United States v.
Brown, 133 F.3d 993, 997 (7th Cir. 1998)).
Here, the delay at issue is a mere two days. The Court finds, therefore, that the
delay was minor, and does not present any a significant impact on judicial proceedings.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4

Nor is there any evidence that the two-day delay at issue would cause any prejudice to the
Defendant. Given his swift response upon discovering the deadline, the Court further
finds that there is no evidence that Plaintiff acted other than in good faith in requesting
the delay. Thus, even assuming the delay resulted from Plaintiff’s carelessness, the Court
finds that his neglect is excusable because there was no harm caused and he acted
expeditiously to correct the mistake once it was discovered. Accordingly,
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File an Appeal (Dkt. 46-1) is

GRANTED.

DATED: June 4, 2018

_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief U.S. District Court Judge

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 5