DAVID MARK KRAMER, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
AMERICAN POSTAL WORKERS UNION, AFL-CIO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A district court's reentry of an order to preserve appeal rights is not permissible solely due to the clerk's failure to notify the appellant of judgment entry.
Plaintiff's attorney did not receive a signed order of dismissal and only learned of judgment entry months later. The district court granted a motion …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Fed.R.App.P. 4(A) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
The district court’s memorandum granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss was filed on December 2, 1975. As directed by the memorandum, the defendants prepared an order of dismissal, which was forwarded to the court, with copy to plaintiff, on December 11, 1975. The order was thereafter signed by the court and entered on December 15, 1975.
On April 6, 1976, plaintiff moved to “Vacate and Reenter Order of Dismissal to Preserve Rights of Appeal.” In support of that motion, plaintiff’s attorney submitted an affidavit stating that he had never received a signed copy of the order of dismissal, but only an unsigned one, and that he had not learned that judgment had been entered until he telephoned the district court on March 18, 1976. The attorney further averred that he told his client that until a signed copy of the order (or notice thereof) had been received, no decision need be made regarding an appeal.
The district court granted the plaintiff’s motion and reentered the order of dismissal as of May 5,1976. Plaintiff appealed within 30 days of the district court’s order. Although a district court may for compelling reasons reenter an order preserving a party’s right of appeal, see Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Usaform Hall Pool, Inc., 523 F. 2d 744 (5th Cir. 1975), a mere failure of the clerk of the district court to notify the appellant that judgment has been entered is insufficient to permit such relief. Fed.R.Civ.P. 77(d) and Notes of Advisory Committee thereon; In re Morrow, 502 F. 2d 520 (5th Cir. 1974).
Here, appellant’s counsel knew that the case had been decided against his client and that a proposed order had been sent to the district court for signature. Under these circumstances, the three-month delay in contacting the court to ascertain whether judgment had been entered and the unquestion ing reliance on the lack of notice were unjustified. From the foregoing, it is apparent that appellant failed to file this appeal within the time allowed by Fed.R. App.P. 4(a).
We are therefore without jurisdiction in this matter. The appeal is DISMISSED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
R.E. Rodgers and Barbara Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456 (9th Cir. 1983)
-
United States v. O'Neil, 709 F.2d 361 (5th Cir. 1983)
-
Spika v. The Vill. OF Lombard, 763 F.2d 282 (7th Cir. 1985)
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fid. & Deposit Co. OF Md. v. Usaform Hail Pool, Inc., 523 F.2d 744 (5th Cir. 1975)
- In re Morrow v. Morrow, 502 F.2d 520 (5th Cir. 1974)