Maduke v. Capital One Financial Corporation et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 5/10/2017. (c/m 5/11/2017 aos, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR TIlE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Case No.: G.JH-16-7()7
FINANCIAL CORPORATION, £'f'II.,
moves f(lr an extcnsion
e1aims in the abovc-referenccd
to Iilc an appcal from thc
case. ECF No. 27. A hcaring is
Loc. R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2016). For the rcasons statcd below. thc Court will grant
I'lainti ff s motion.
Thc timely Iiling of a not icc of appcal is "mandatory
!Jallkillg & hilS/ Co.. No. CY [1.11-13-1968.
\'. Bee/Oil /)ickin,wI
2016 WI. 4492706.
& Co.. 486 U.S. 196.203
Ward \'. !Jrallch
at *2 (I). Md. Aug. 25. 2016)
(1988)). Pursuant to Fcd. R. App.
P. 4(a)( I )(A). a party must file a notice of appcal as rcquircd by Fcd. R. App. P. 3 within 30 days
alicr the cntry of the District Court's final judgmcnt.
unlcss the District Court cxtcnds thc appcal
pcriod undcr Fcd. R. App. 1'. 4(a)(5). or reopcns the appcal pcriod undcr Fed. R. App. 1'. 4(a)(6).
Undcr Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5). thc District Court may cxtcnd thc timc to file a notice of appcal if
a party moves i()r an "cxtcnsion
of tim c" at a timc "no latcr than 30 days alier thc timc
by this Rule 4('1) expires:'
and ..that party shows excusable
time to file a notice of appeal expired on April 24. 2017. PlaintilTthen
had until May 24. 2017 to move for an extension
to Rule 4(a)(5)(A)(ii).
of time based on excusable
2017. the Court tinds that her Motion for an Extension
Next. the Court must consider
reflect. these standards
tiled the instant motion on April 25.
of Time was timely filed.
ECF No. 27
Notes to the Federal Rules of
occupy ""different domains"
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A)(ii).
neglect or good
whether or not Plaintiff has offered a showing of excusahle
neglect or good cause for the delay. As the Advisory
and are ""not
note to 2002
ItJhe excusable neglect standard applies in situations in which there is finl1t: in
such situations. the need for an extension is usually occasioned by something
within the control of the movant. The good cause standard applies in situations in
which there is no fault -- excusable or otherwise. In such situations. the need for
an extension is usually occasioned by something that is not within the control of
Id To illustrate the difference
in the standards.
notes describe a situation
the postal service failed to deliver a notice of appeal. Id. In that situation.
linds that excusable
at all:' Id.
of her time to file an appeal because ofa
death in her family on the date of the appeal deadline.
good cause rather than
neglect would apply because ... the movant may not have been neglectful
Here. Plaintiff requests a one day extension
ECF No. 27. In this situation.
neglect rather than good cause is the appropriate
while a death in her ti1l11ilywas both tragic and outside Plaintiffs
to wait until thc last day possible to filc her appeal was within her control.
control. her decision
to the non-movant:
taking into eonsideration"(
(2) the length of the delay and its potential
(3) the reason fi)r the delay. including
impact on judicial
whether it was in the reasonable
2014 WL 5023214.
at '" 1-2 (D, Md. Oct. 7. 2014 ) (quoting
I3nll1.mick Assocs. Ltd I"shil', 507 U,S, 380.395
in the original).
that. "laJs a general rule. the first two I'iolleer factors will favor the
Fourth Circuit has explained
moving party because the time limits inherent in Rule 4(a)(5) necessarily
I) the danger of
the movant acted in good faith:' Shiller \', I'rillce Gellrge\' Oy .. No,
and (4) \dlether
neglect is an "equitable
the extent of
or delay" and the fOUl1h factor. good faith is "seldom at issue:' S)'II1biollics Illc.
Ortlieb. 432 F. i\pp'x 216. 219 (4th Cir. 2(11) (citing Silimllch \', Celebrity Cruises, IlIc.. 333
F.3d 355. 366 (2d Cir. 2003)), Thus. the reason for the delay is the "most important"
Court to consider.
Shiller. 2014 WL 5023214, at
* 1-2 (quoting
issue for the
Thompsoll \'. £.1. DIIl'lIlIt de
Nemollrs &- Co.. 76 FJd 530. 534 (4th Cir. 1996)), and"a district court should find excusable
neglect only in the extl'llllrdillll/)' cases where injustiec would otherwise
432 F. App'x at 220 (emphasis
above. Plaintiff states that a death in her family caused her to file her notice
her request for an extension
of time one day alier
of the appeal period. which was also only one day alier the death in her fllll1ily that
caused the delay.
Thus. this is not a situation
in the original),
of appeal one day late, Further. Plaintiffliled
where a party suffered a personal tragedy and then
See lIarrillgtoll \'. City o(Chicagll. 433 F.3d
(7th Cir. 2006) (death in Illll1ily not an excuse when counsel"kept
the dark" during discovery
to Unf(lreSeen evcnts, Thus. while it would havc been prudent
as quickly as possible
have planned to lile
her appeal more promptly. the Court tinds that she has made a suf1icient showing of excusable
neglect and thus. will allow her to file her notice of appeal one day late. See Jones
Mwy/and. LLC, No. CIV.A.DKC 08-0304. 2010 WL 3677017. at *7 (D. Md. Sept. 17.2010)
(granting motion to extend time due to the recent passing of counsel's family member and the
minimal delay incurred by late tiling).
For the foregoing reasons. Plaintiffs
Motion to Extend Appeal Deadline. ECF No. 27. is
granted. A separate Order follows.
Dated: Mav 10.2017
Gf:ORGE J. HAZEL
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?