Tam Hoang v. Microsemi Corp. et al.

S.D. Texas

Tam Hoang v. Microsemi Corp. et al.

DecidedMarch 12, 2026

Docket4:19-cv-01971

StatusUnknown

This text of Tam Hoang v. Microsemi Corp. et al. (Tam Hoang v. Microsemi Corp. et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tam Hoang v. Microsemi Corp. et al., (S.D. Tex. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT March 12, 2026 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk HOUSTON DIVISION TAM HOANG, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Civil Action No. 4:19-CV-01971 § MICROSEMI CORP. et al., § § Defendants. § MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Ex Parte motion for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal.1 (Dkt. No. 202). Plaintiff requests a thirty-day extension to file his notice of appeal under Rule 4(a)(5) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure because Defendants only recently filed their admitted trial exhibits and because Plaintiff’s objections, (Dkt. No. 200), to Microchip’s bill of costs, (Dkt. No. 198), remains pending, (Dkt. No. 202). A district court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal for good cause. Fed. R. App. Pro. 4(a)(5)(A)(ii). Because Plaintiff did not have time to adequately review Defendants’ filing of their admitted trial exhibits prior to the appellate deadline, the Court finds that there is good cause to extend the deadline. See S&W Enters., LLC v. SouthTrust Bank of Ala., NA, 315 F.3d 533, 535 (5th Cir. 2003) (“The good cause standard requires the ‘party seeking relief to show that the deadlines cannot reasonably be met

1 While this Motion was originally filed “ex parte”, the Court instructed Plaintiff to confer, and Microchip filed a Response to this Motion. (Dkt. No. 204). despite the diligence of the party needing the extension.’”) (citation omitted). The Court therefore GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion, (Dkt. No. 202), and extends the deadline to file a notice of appeal by thirty days.? It is SO ORDERED. Signed on March 12, 2026.

DREW B. TIPTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2 The Court notes that Plaintiff’s second ground — that Defendants’ Bill of Costs, (Dkt. No. 198) remains pending — does not constitute good cause as it does not toll the appellate deadline. See Moody Nat'l Bank of Galveston v. GE Life and Annuity Assur. Co., 383 F.3d 249, 250 (Sth Cir. 2004) (“Motions addressing costs and attorney’s fees ... are generally made pursuant to {Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 54, are considered collateral to the judgment, and do not toll the time period for filing an appeal.”).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT March 12, 2026 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk HOUSTON DIVISION TAM HOANG, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Civil Action No. 4:19-CV-01971 § MICROSEMI CORP. et al., § § Defendants. § MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Ex Parte motion for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal.1 (Dkt. No. 202). Plaintiff requests a thirty-day extension to file his notice of appeal under Rule 4(a)(5) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure because Defendants only recently filed their admitted trial exhibits and because Plaintiff’s objections, (Dkt. No. 200), to Microchip’s bill of costs, (Dkt. No. 198), remains pending, (Dkt. No. 202). A district court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal for good cause. Fed. R. App. Pro. 4(a)(5)(A)(ii). Because Plaintiff did not have time to adequately review Defendants’ filing of their admitted trial exhibits prior to the appellate deadline, the Court finds that there is good cause to extend the deadline. See S&W Enters., LLC v. SouthTrust Bank of Ala., NA, 315 F.3d 533, 535 (5th Cir. 2003) (“The good cause standard requires the ‘party seeking relief to show that the deadlines cannot reasonably be met

1 While this Motion was originally filed “ex parte”, the Court instructed Plaintiff to confer, and Microchip filed a Response to this Motion. (Dkt. No. 204). despite the diligence of the party needing the extension.’”) (citation omitted). The Court therefore GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion, (Dkt. No. 202), and extends the deadline to file a notice of appeal by thirty days.? It is SO ORDERED. Signed on March 12, 2026.

DREW B. TIPTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2 The Court notes that Plaintiff’s second ground — that Defendants’ Bill of Costs, (Dkt. No. 198) remains pending — does not constitute good cause as it does not toll the appellate deadline. See Moody Nat'l Bank of Galveston v. GE Life and Annuity Assur. Co., 383 F.3d 249, 250 (Sth Cir. 2004) (“Motions addressing costs and attorney’s fees ... are generally made pursuant to {Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 54, are considered collateral to the judgment, and do not toll the time period for filing an appeal.”).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Tam Hoang v. Microsemi Corp. et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tam-hoang-v-microsemi-corp-et-al-txsd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack