MARTINEZ v. FUDEMAN

Filing 68

OPINION/ORDER THAT THE MOTION TO REOPEN (DOC. NO. 56) IS DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDWARD G. SMITH ON 3/13/18. 3/13/18 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE' AND E-MAILED. (ky, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
GILBERT M. MARTINEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF READING PROPERTY
MAINTENANCE DIVISION, and
READING AREA WATER AUTHORITY,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-1290

ORDER
AND NOW, this 13th day of March, 2018, after considering the following documents:
(1) the “Motion to Reopen the Time to Appeal Pursuant to Rule 4(A)6 & Memorandum of Law
in Support” (“Motion to Reopen”) filed by the pro se plaintiff, Gilbert M. Martinez (Doc. No.
56); (2) the responses in opposition to the motion to reopen separately filed by the defendants,
City of Reading Property Maintenance Division and Reading Area Water Authority (Doc. Nos.
57, 58); (3) the “Reply and Affidavit in Support of Motion to Reopen Time to Appeal” filed by
the plaintiff (Doc. No. 60); (4) the sur-reply in opposition to the motion to reopen filed by the
City of Reading Property Maintenance Division (Doc. No. 61); (5) the “Motion Pursuant
Fed.R.P.R. [sic] 60B(1)(3)(4)(6) and Sur-Reply to Motion Pursuant to Fed.C.Appeal R. [sic]
4(6)(A) for Time to Reopen Appeal with Memorandum of Law in Support” filed by the plaintiff
(Doc. No. 63); (6) Reading Area Water Authority’s “Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion
Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 60(b)(1)(3)(4)(6) and Sur-Reply to Motion Pursuant to F.R.A.P. 4(a)(6) for
Time to Reopen Appeal” (Doc. No. 65); and (7) the “Reply to Defendants response brief
opposing Plaintiff’s 60(b) Motion and Request for time to reopen Appeal” filed by the plaintiff
(Doc. No. 66); and after holding an evidentiary hearing and hearing oral argument on the motion

to reopen on January 9, 2018, during which the plaintiff and defense counsel were present; and
for the reasons set forth in the separately filed memorandum opinion, it is hereby ORDERED
that the motion to reopen (Doc. No. 56) is DENIED as follows:
1.

The Motion to Reopen, to the extent that the plaintiff seeks to have the court

reopen the time for him to file a notice of appeal from the court’s September 29, 2017 order
under Rule 4(a)(6) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, is DENIED; and
2.

The Motion to Reopen, to the extent that the plaintiff seek to have the court

reopen the time for him to file a notice of appeal from the court’s November 3, 2017 order,
which the court has interpreted as a motion seeking an extension of time to appeal under Rule
4(a)(5) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, is DENIED AS MOOT.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Edward G. Smith
EDWARD G. SMITH, J.

2