RALPH O. STAUBER AND MARY S. BODER, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
LAWRENCE L. KIESER AND JUANITA KIESER, CO-PARTNERS D/B/A J & L OUTLET, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES; RALPH O. STAUBER AND MARY S. BODER, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, V. ALLIED MILLS, INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
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 despite the untimeliness of a Rule 59 motion, unique circumstances justified hearing the appeal to avoid hardship.
Plaintiffs filed a Rule 59 motion after the district court granted an untimely extension. The motion was denied, and the subsequent appeal was filed l…
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 Unique Circumstances Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendants-appellees have filed a motion to dismiss this appeal as untimely. For the reasons hereinafter stated, this motion is denied.
In the case below, the district court granted defense motions for summary judgment on April 17, 1980. Since May 17 fell on a Saturday, the thirty-day time limit for filing an appeal fell on Monday, May 19. On April 30, plaintiffs sought to extend the time to file a Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment. The district court granted an extension to May 10, a Saturday, and the Rule 59 motion itself was filed by plaintiffs the following Monday, May 12. The motion was subsequently denied on November 21; a notice of appeal followed on December 19.
Defendants contend that since the Rule 59 motion was untimely, i.e., filed beyond the ten days allowed by rule, it was ineffective to toll the thirty-day appeal period, which expired in May.
District courts are without jurisdiction to extend the time to file motions under Rule 59(e). Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b); Browder v. Director, Department of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978). However, it is here obvious that plaintiffs relied to their detriment upon the district court’s statements and action. That is, by granting an extension and then accepting the Rule 59(e) motion, the district court led plaintiffs to believe that those actions were properly done. As a consequence, plaintiffs permitted the thirty-day appeal period to expire on May 19 without filing their notice of appeal. In these “unique circumstances,” it would now work a great hardship on plaintiffs to dismiss the appeal as untimely. Thompson v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 375 U.S. 384, 84 S.Ct. 397, 11 L.Ed.2d 404 (1964). The court is of the opinion that to do so would not be in the best interests of justice.
Consequently, the motion to dismiss this appeal as untimely is denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Meral Smith v. Evans, 853 F.2d 155 (3d Cir. 1988)
-
Kraus v. Consol. Rail Corp., 899 F.2d 1360 (3d Cir. 1990)
-
VAN Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241 (10th Cir. 1991)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Browder v. Dir., Dep't of Corr. of Ill., 434 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1978)
- Thompson v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 375 U.S. 384 (U.S. 1964)