Brown v. Brennan

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MISTY DANIELLE BROWN, Case No. 19-cv-05797-JSC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: MOTION FOR 9 v. EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE NOTICE OF APPEAL 10 MEGAN BRENNAN, Re: Dkt. No. 74 Defendant. 11

12 13 Judgment was entered in this matter on March 26, 2021.1 (Dkt. No. 73.)2 Before the Court 14 is Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to file notice of appeal. (Dkt. No. 74.) The motion is 15 fully briefed. (Dkt. No. 77.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s 16 motion. 17 Notice of appeal was due within 60 days of entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 18 4(a)(1)(B)(iii). Notwithstanding that deadline, the Court “may extend the time to file a notice of 19 appeal if: (i) a party so moves no later than 30 days after the time prescribed by this Rule 4(a) 20 expires; and (ii) . . . that party shows excusable neglect or good cause.” Fed. R. App. P. 21 4(a)(5)(A). Plaintiff’s motion for extension, filed within 30 days after the 60 day deadline to 22 appeal, is timely. See U.S. ex rel. Haight v. Catholic Healthcare W., 602 F.3d 949, 954-56 (9th 23 Cir. 2010). As such, the Court may evaluate her showing of excusable neglect or good cause. 24 “Excusable neglect” is an equitable concept, guided by four factors: “the danger of 25 prejudice to the [non-moving party], the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial 26 1 All parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 27 636(c). (Dkt. Nos. 6, 25.) 1 proceedings, the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the 2 || movant, and whether the movant acted in good faith.” Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick 3 Assocs. Ltd., 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993). The factors are elastic and do not create a rigid rule; the 4 Court has considerable discretion to grant or deny an extension. Pincay v. Andrews, 389 F.3d 853, 5 858-60 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (affirming extension where lawyer relied on paralegal who 6 || misread a clear deadline rule, even though “a lawyer’s failure to read an applicable rule is one of 7 the least compelling excuses that can be offered,” id. at 859). 8 Plaintiff is proceeding in this matter without representation by a lawyer. Despite 9 || researching on the website for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Plaintiff was confused about 10 || the deadline and believed she had 90 days to file notice of appeal. Plaintiff appears to have acted 11 in good faith by filing this motion the day after she learned of her mistake. An extension will 12 || create minimal delay and no apparent prejudice to Defendant. While Plaintiff sought and was 13 granted several extensions prior to entry of judgment, (see Dkt. No. 46), those deadlines provided 14 || dates certain, whereas the entry of judgment did not give Plaintiff clear notice of her appeal 3 15 deadline. (Dkt. No. 73.) The Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff's motion did not set forth a 16 the specific bases for her confusion, but in its discretion GRANTS the motion. 3 17 The deadline to file notice of appeal is July 12, 2021. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(C). S 18 This Order disposes of Docket No. 74. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: June 28, 2021

22 ne JAQQUELINE SCOTT CORL 23 United States Magistrate Judge 24 25 26 27 28