Eun Kim v. Parcel K- Tudor Hall Farm LLC

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: October 23, 2023
• Docket: 23-1482
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1482 Doc: 13 Filed: 10/23/2023 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1482

EUN O. KIM; CHIN KIM; DANIEL I. KIM; GOOM Y. PARK; GYEASOOK KIM; KAP J. CHUNG; LENA KIM; MI YOUNG KIM; MYONG HO NAM; YOUN HWAN KIM; YOUNG JOO KANG; ALAN YOUNG CHENG; SHUI QUI ZHANG; EVA YIHUA TU; HELENA LEE; KI N. LEE; SUN H. LEE; KWANG BAG LEE; KWANGJON KIM; NAM DOLL HUH,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

and

AMY HSIANG-CHI TONG; HONG S. CHUNG,

Plaintiffs,

v.

PARCEL K- TUDOR HALL FARM LLC,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:09-cv-01572-PJM)

Submitted: October 19, 2023 Decided: October 23, 2023

Before KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1482 Doc: 13 Filed: 10/23/2023 Pg: 2 of 4

Eun O. Kim, Chin Kim, Daniel I. Kim, Goom Y. Park, Gyeasook Kim, Kap J. Chung, Lena Kim, Mi Young Kim, Myong Ho Nam, Youn Hwan Kim, Young Joo Kang, Alan Young Cheng, Shui Qui Zhang, Eva Yihua Tu, Helena Lee, Ki N. Lee, Sun H. Lee, Kwang Bag Lee, Kwangjon Kim, Nam Doll Huh, Appellants Pro Se. Stephen Ari Metz, OFFIT KURMAN, PA, Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-1482 Doc: 13 Filed: 10/23/2023 Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Appellants—a group of 20 individual investors—seek to appeal the district court’s

order granting Appellee Parcel K- Tudor Hall Farm LLC’s motion to reopen and granting

in part Appellee’s motion for authority to transfer, as well as the court’s subsequent order

denying Appellants’ motion to reconsider that order. We dismiss the appeal in part and

affirm in part.

In civil cases, parties have 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final

judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court

extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a

jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The district

court entered its order granting the motion to reopen and granting in part the motion for

authority to transfer on August 1, 2022. Appellants filed their motion to reconsider on

March 16, 2023—more than 28 days after entry of the underlying order—and filed the

notice of appeal on April 27, 2023. Because Appellants failed to timely appeal or to obtain

an extension or reopening of the appeal period as to the August 2022 order, we dismiss the

appeal as to that order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(vi); Aikens v. Ingram, 652 F.3d 496,

501 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (“[A]n appeal from denial of Rule 60(b) relief does not bring

up the underlying judgment for review.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

As to the district court’s order denying Appellants’ motion to reconsider, we review

for abuse of discretion the denial of such motions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). See Aikens,

652 F.3d at 501. “A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time”

3 USCA4 Appeal: 23-1482 Doc: 13 Filed: 10/23/2023 Pg: 4 of 4

after entry of the underlying judgment or order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). Upon review,

we discern no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of Appellants’ motion. We

therefore affirm the district court’s order. Kim v. Nyce, No. 8:09-cv-01572-PJM (D. Md.

Mar. 29, 2023).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART