Natour v. Hamdan

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: January 28, 2025
• Docket: 23-40714
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 23-40714 Document: 163-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/28/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

No. 23-40714 FILED January 28, 2025 ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Nick Natour; Enclare, L.L.C., Clerk

Plaintiffs—Appellants,

versus

Ali Hicham Hamdan; Data Payment Systems, Incorporated; Luis Requejo; Scott Bickell; One Payment Services; Elavon, Incorporated; Fiserv, Incorporated; Bank of America National Association; Paide, a California Corporation,

Defendants—Appellees. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:21-CV-331 ______________________________

Before Haynes, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Restaurant owner Nick Natour appeals the district court’s dismissal of his claims against various defendants in connection with a disputed debit card transaction. We dismiss his appeal as untimely.

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 23-40714 Document: 163-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/28/2025

No. 23-40714

The district court entered final judgment against Natour on March 9, 2023. Natour had 30 days to appeal—specifically, until April 8, 2023. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). Natour did not file a notice of appeal until De- cember 21, 2023. His appeal is therefore untimely. Natour contends that the filing of post-judgment motions extended his time to appeal. We disagree. The motions he references all relate to attor- ney’s fees and costs. While a district court is permitted to extend the appeal deadline in light of a pending motion for attorney’s fees, extension does not occur automatically. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(iii) (appeal deadline runs from disposition of motion “for attorney’s fees under Rule 54 if the dis- trict court extends the time to appeal under Rule 58” (emphasis added)); see also, e.g., Burnley v. City of San Antonio, 470 F.3d 189, 199 (5th Cir. 2006) (“[Fed. R. Civ. P.] 58(c)(2), when read in context with [Fed. R. App. P.] 4(a)(4)(iii), authorizes a district court to delay the finality of a judgment on the merits . . . for the purpose of allowing appeals from both the merits judgment and the fee judgment to be taken at the same time.” (emphasis added)). Here, the district court did not extend the time to appeal. APPEAL DISMISSED.