Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 1, 2025

Gi v. Chocgan and Toupay PARDM PLLC

Judge
Katherine Failla
Docket
1:23-cv-07016
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Bo Org Gi v. Chocgan, Judge Failla denied Bo Org Gi’s request to extend the appeal deadline because the order he sought to appeal was not appealable.

Who this affects

Bo Org Gi, whose request for additional time to appeal the August 21, 2025 Order was denied.

What happened

In Bo Org Gi v. Chocgan and Toupay PARDM PLLC, Bo Org Gi asked for more time to file a notice of appeal from the Court’s August 21, 2025 Order. The filing deadline had already passed.

The Court said it was denying the request not because Bo Org Gi lacked a valid reason for missing the deadline, but because the proposed appeal was improper. The August 21 Order was not a final order that could be appealed immediately, and it also did not qualify for an immediate, limited appeal.

The Court denied the request for an extension and directed the Clerk to close the pending motion and mail a copy of the order to Bo Org Gi. Judge Katherine Failla signed the order.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Gi v. Chocgan and Toupay PARDM PLLC · No. 1:23-cv-07016
Judge
Katherine Failla
Date
Oct. 1, 2025

Background

Bo Org Gi moved under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) for additional time to file a notice of appeal. The motion sought to appeal the Court’s August 21, 2025 Order. The opinion states that the deadline for filing a notice of appeal had already expired. The motion was filed at docket entry 50.

Ruling

The Court denied the motion. It stated that the denial was not based on a lack of good cause for missing the original deadline. Instead, the Court concluded that the proposed appeal was improper because the August 21, 2025 Order was not an appealable final order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The Court also concluded that the order was not the type of order that could be challenged through an immediate, limited appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292. Therefore, even if Bo Org Gi had filed a timely notice of appeal, the August 21 Order would not have been appealable.

The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 50 and mail a copy of the order to Bo Org Gi at the address on record. Judge Katherine Failla dated the order September 30, 2025, in New York, New York.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.