GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
GEORGE S. RUSH, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A RUSH ENGINEERS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
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.
The court held that a post-judgment motion served within the time limit and filed within a reasonable time thereafter is considered timely for tolling the appeal period.
Appellant filed a post-judgment motion under Rule 59, serving it within the 10-day limit but filing it two days after the limit expired. The notice of…
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 Federal Rule Of Appellate Procedure 4(A)(2) cases and more on FLexlaw
GODBOLD, Chief Judge:
The district court’s judgment in this civil case was entered December 10, 1981. On December 21 appellant served on the parties a post-judgment motion under F.R. Civ.P. 59, but this motion was not filed with the district court until December 23, two days later. The motion was denied that day. Appellant then filed its notice of appeal January 20, 1982.
Appellee moves to dismiss the appeal, contending that the notice of appeal was untimely, having been filed more than 30 days after the entry of judgment, see FRAP 4(a)(2), and contending that the time for filing the notice of appeal was not tolled by the Rule 59 motion because that motion was untimely. FRAP 4(a)(4) provides that the time for filing the notice of appeal is tolled by the filing of a timely motion under Rule 59. Rule 59 requires that motions under it “shall be served not later than 10 days after entry of the judgment.” F.R. Civ.P. 59(b), (e) (emphasis added). Here, the post-judgment motion was served in time 1 but was filed two days after the Rule 59 time limit expired.
The former Fifth Circuit has held that “the ten-day limit of Rule 59(b) does not determine the time for filing of a motion for a new trial; . . . Rule 59(b) applies to time of service and not to time of filing; .. . Rule 5(d) governs time of filing.” Allen v. Ault, 564 F. 2d 1198, 1199 (5th Cir. 1977). We are bound by this holding. Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F. 2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981). Rule 5(d) provides that “[a]ll papers . .. required to be served upon a party shall be filed with the court either before service or within a reasonable time thereafter.” Two days is a reasonable time. See Allen v. Ault, supra (implicitly holding that one day is reasonable). Thus, the Rule 59 motion was both timely served and timely filed.2 A timely Rule 59 motion tolls the running of the time for filing the notice of appeal. FRAP 4(a)(4). Because the notice of appeal was filed within 30 days of the disposition of the Rule 59 motion, it is timely.
The motion to dismiss is DENIED.
. The 10th day was a Sunday and so the period was extended one day. F.R.Civ.P. 6(a).
. Therefore, we need not decide whether FRAP 4(a)(4) refers only to timely service or also requires timely filing of the post-judgment motion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wooden v. Bd. OF Regents OF THE Univ. Sys. OF Ga., 247 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2001)…ir.1984). Rule 4(a)(4), however, provides that the time for filing a notice of appeal is tolled by the filing with the district court of a timely motion to alter or amend judgment under Fed. R.Civ.P. 59. See, e.g., Great American Ins. Co. v. Rush, 670 F. 2d 995, 996 (11th Cir.1982). Consequently, a notice of appeal filed within 30 days of the disposition of the Rule 59 motion is timely. See id. Defendants suggest, but do not argue affirmatively, that the Tracy Plaintiffs’ reconsideration motion did not ex…
-
Virgo v. Riviera Beach Assocs., Ltd., 30 F.3d 1350 (11th Cir. 1994)…ely motion for new trial thus tolling the permissible time for appeal. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(b) requires. a motion for a new trial to be served no later than ten days after the entry of the judgment. See Great American Ins. Co. v. Rush, 670 F. 2d 995, 996 (11th Cir.1982). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a) “[w]hen the period of time prescribed or allowed is less than 11 days, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays shall be excluded in the computation.” Calculating the numb…
-
Kilgo v. Bowman Transp., Inc., 789 F.2d 859 (11th Cir. 1986)…uirement of Rule 4(a)(4). Since Bowman filed its second notice of appeal within thirty days after the denial of its motion for a new trial, we hold that we have jurisdiction over the instant appeal. See, e.g., Great American Insurance Co. v. Rush, 670 F. 2d 995, 996 (11th Cir.1982). . Bowman also contends that the district court abused its discretion in denying Bowman’s motion for a new trial based on a newly discovered Department of Transportation report ("DOT report”) which concluded, inter alia, that l…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bonner v. City OF Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981)
- Allen v. Ault, 564 F.2d 1198 (5th Cir. 1977)