Flohrs v. Eli Lilly Company

Filing 86

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. Plaintiffs motion for an extension of time in which to file his notice of appeal (Dk. 85) is denied. See attached for more details. Signed by U.S. District Senior Judge Sam A. Crow on 6/6/2013. Mailed to pro se party: Mr. William J. Flohrs, 10633 W. 123rd Street, Overland Park, KS 66213 by certified mail; Certified Tracking Number: 70112970000196796151 and regular mail. (bmw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

WILLIAM J. FLOHRS,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 12-2439-SAC

ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This civil case comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for an
additional 60 days in which to file an appeal. In support of that motion,
Plaintiff alleges that settlement negotiations are ongoing and that he needs
additional time in which to discuss settlement of the case.
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure (FRAP) 4(a) states that in a civil
case, the notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after entry of the
judgment appealed from. That rule provides that the district court may
extend the time to file a notice of appeal if a party moves for an extension
within 30 days after the original appeal time expires, and the party “shows

“excusable neglect or good cause.” FRAP 4(a)(5)(A). But no extension may
exceed 30 days after the original time, or 14 days after the date of an order
granting the motion, whichever is later. Id.
Plaintiff shows no reason for not filing his notice of appeal within the
original 30-day period, and shows neither excusable neglect nor good cause
for not doing so. See generally Bishop v. Corsentino, 371 F.3d 1203, 120607 (10th Cir. 2004); City of Chanute v. Williams Natural Gas Co., 31 F.3d
1041, 1046 (10th Cir. 1994). That Plaintiff filed this motion within his
original 30-day period in which to appeal shows that he could have instead
timely filed his notice of appeal. Plaintiff could have subsequently withdrawn
or dismissed his appeal thereafter, in the event settlement negotiations were
fruitful.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for an extension of
time in which to file his notice of appeal (Dk. 85) is denied.
Dated this 6th day of June, 2013, at Topeka, Kansas.

s/ Sam A. Crow
Sam A. Crow, U.S. District Senior Judge

2