United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Shreveport Division
RYAN HAYGOOD, ET AL.
BRIAN BEGUE, ET AL.
HORNSBY, MAGISTRATE Judge
MAURICE HICKS, JR., CHIEF JUDGE.
the Court is Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration.
See Record Document 279. Defendants ask this Court
to reconsider its Memorandum Order of July 10, 2018 (Record
Document 278), which denied Plaintiffs' Motion for
Reconsideration and granted Plaintiffs' Motion for
Extension of Time to File a Notice of Appeal. Plaintiffs
oppose the instant motion. See Record Document For
the reasons set forth below, Defendants' Motion for
Reconsideration (Record Document 279) is
parties do not dispute that March 22, 2018 was the deadline
to file for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 59(e).
Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Reconsideration under Rule
59(e) and 60(b) on March 23, 2018 - one day late under Rule
59(e). See Record Document 241. This Court denied
Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration under both Rule
59(e) and Rule 60(b). See Record Document 278.
had also asked the Court for an extension of time to file a
notice of appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 4(a)(5). See Record Document 274.
Court granted this motion, stating:
Here, the Court first notes that the Haygood Plaintiffs'
Motion for Reconsideration under Rule 60(b) was timely filed
and likely tolled the time delays for filing a notice of
appeal. Notwithstanding, the facts and circumstances
presented by the Haygood Plaintiffs in the instant motion
constitute excusable neglect and/or good cause under Federal
Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5)(A)(ii). Thus, to the
extent it is necessary, the Motion for Extension of Time to
File a Notice of Appeal (Record Document 274) is
Document 278 at 2-3. Defendants now seek reconsideration of
this ruling granting an extension of time to file a notice of
July 10, 2018 ruling, this Court was mistaken as to the
effect of filing a Rule 60(b) motion, as the comments to the
Note to Subdivision (b). Application to the court under this
subdivision does not extend the time for taking an
appeal, as distinguished from the motion for new trial.
60, Advisory Committee Notes, 1937 Adoption (emphasis added).
Moreover, in its ruling, this Court failed to address that
Plaintiffs' motion to extend the time to file a notice of
appeal was untimely. Appellate Rule 4(a)(5) states that a
party must move for the extension of the time for filing a
notice of appeal no later than 30 days after the time
prescribed by Rule 4(a) expires. Here, the Court finds that
the deadline to file a notice of appeal was likely March 26,
2018, but no later than May 11, 2018. Giving all benefit to
Plaintiffs, any motion filed pursuant to Appellate Rule
4(a)(5) should have been filed no later than June 11, 2018.
See Record Document 279-1 at 12, 15-16. Plaintiffs
filed their motion for extension under Appellate Rule 4(a)(5)
on June 27, 2018. Thus, such motion was untimely under the
plain language of Rule 4(a)(5).
temporal limitation set forth in Appellate Rule 4(a)(5)(A)(i)
is also codified in 28 U.S.C. § 2107. Section 2107
provides, in pertinent part:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, no appeal
shall bring any judgment, order or decree in an action, suit
or proceeding of a civil nature before a court of appeals for
review unless notice of appeal is filed, within thirty ...