MARTINEZ v. FUDEMAN
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,
CITY OF READING PROPERTY
MAINTENANCE DIVISION, and
READING AREA WATER AUTHORITY,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-1290
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:
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
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.
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?