Mavromatis v. Maack

• Court: Montana Supreme Court
• Decided: May 17, 2022
• Docket: DA 22-0220
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

05/17/2022

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA Case Number: DA 22-0220

DA 22-0220 1 .,...,.„.,,"..) JAMES MAVROMATIS, MAY 1 7 2022 Bowe n C3re nvrood Plaintiff and Appellant, Clerk of Supreme Court State) of Montana

v. ORDER

TOM MAACK,

Defendant and Appellee.

Representing himself, James Mavromatis has filed a verified Petition for an Out-of-Time Appeal, indicating that he failed to file a timely appeal. Mavromatis seeks to appeal an August 10, 2021 judgment the Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County, entered against hirn after granting Defendant Tom Maack's motion for summary judgment. We amend the caption to comport with the District Court's Order. M. R. App. P. 2(4). Mavromatis also has submitted a Notice of Appeal, a Motion and Affidavit to Proceed without Paying the Filing Fee, a Motion for Appeal, and a Request for Hearing, along with a money order for payment of the filing fee. M. R. App. P. 4(6) allows this Court to grant an out-of-time appeal "[i]n the infrequent harsh case and under extraordinary circumstances amounting to a gross miscarriage of justice[1" "Extraordinary circumstances do not include mere mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect." M. R. App. P. 4(6). Mavromatis claims that, as "his own attorney," he did not complete his appeal paperwork accurately and wishes to re-submit it. Mavromatis does not explain his request to "re-submit" a notice of appeal that he does not appear previously to have submitted to this Court. He also does not offer any explanation why he has delayed nine months in submitting his request. Although Mavromatis provided a verified petition and a copy of the judgment, he did not include supporting facts or other evidence establishing extraordinary circurnstances. M. R. App. P. 4(6). We grant self-represented litigants a certain amount of latitude, but "that latitude cannot be so wide as to prejudice the other party." First Bank (N.A.)-Billings v. Heidema, 219 Mont. 373, 376, 711 P.2d 1384, 1385 (1986). We conclude that Mavromatis has shown at best mistake or excusable neglect, neither of which is sufficient under Rule 4(6). Allowing appeal of final judgment after a nine-month delay would prejudice the defendant when the appellant has not offered extraordinary justification as the rule requires. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Mavromatis's Petition for an Out-of-Time Appeal is DENIED. The Clerk of the Supreme Court is directed to RETURN his payment for the filing fee. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the other pleadings—Motion and Affidavit to Proceed without Paying the Filing Fee, Motion for Appeal, and Request for Hearing—are DENIED. The Clerk of the Suprerne Court is directed to provide a copy of this Order to James Mavrornatis and to Torn — ck. DATED this day of May, 2022.

, 5 21-1e--61--Justices