Price v. Hale Global
- Jesse Furman
- 1:24-cv-02826
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Price v. Hale Global, Judge Furman granted Neal Price more time to file a notice of appeal, while repeating that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
Neal Price received additional time to file a notice of appeal. The defendants were the opposing parties whose lack of meaningful prejudice was considered.
What happened
In Price v. Hale Global, Neal Price, who was representing himself, asked for more time to file a notice of appeal. The court considered the rule allowing an extension for excusable neglect or good cause.
The court found that the lack of meaningful prejudice to the defendants, the short delay, and the absence of bad faith favored an extension. Price said that homelessness and living in his car, hotels, and short-term rentals while working as a rideshare driver made it difficult to focus on legal matters. The defendants said his explanation lacked specificity but did not oppose the motion.
Judge Jesse M. Furman granted Price’s motion for an extension of time. The judge also repeated the court’s earlier observation that any appeal in the case would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Price v. Hale Global · No. 1:24-cv-02826
- Jesse Furman
- Feb. 3, 2025
Background
Neal Price, proceeding without a lawyer, moved on January 26, 2025, for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) allows a district court to extend the filing deadline when the party shows excusable neglect or good cause. The opinion states that excusable neglect was the appropriate standard because Price’s failure to file on time was at least partly due to his own inadvertence, mistake, or carelessness.
Courts evaluate excusable neglect using four factors: possible prejudice to the opposing party, the length of the delay and its effect on court proceedings, the reason for the delay and whether it was within the moving party’s control, and whether the moving party acted in good faith.
Analysis
The court found that the first, second, and fourth factors favored Price. The defendants would not suffer meaningful prejudice, the delay was short, and nothing indicated that Price acted in bad faith. The court viewed the third factor—the reason for the delay—as closer. Price stated that he was homeless and living in his car, hotels, and Airbnbs while working as a rideshare driver, and that these circumstances made it difficult to focus on legal matters.
The defendants responded that Price’s explanation lacked specificity but did not oppose the motion. The court relied in part on that lack of opposition and concluded that at least three of the four factors favored granting an extension.
Ruling
Judge Jesse M. Furman GRANTED Price’s motion for an extension of time. The court also reiterated its earlier observation that “any appeal” in the case “would not be taken in good faith.” The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 31 and mail a copy of the order to Price. The opinion does not state the new deadline for filing the notice of appeal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.