Xu v. Teneo
- Gregory Woods
- 1:25-cv-00109
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Junsai Xu v. Teneo, Judge Woods denied Xu’s late motion to extend the deadline for appealing.
Junsai Xu’s attempt to obtain more time to appeal the dismissal of his complaint; the order also affects his ability to proceed without paying fees for an appeal from this order.
What happened
Junsai Xu’s complaint had been dismissed without prejudice on June 28, 2025, after the court addressed his failure to serve the defendants on time. Xu later filed a notice of appeal and asked for more time to appeal.
The court found that Xu’s request was filed nearly two months after the deadline for seeking an extension. It also found that he had not shown a legally acceptable reason for the delay, rejecting his claim that he had not received the dismissal order.
Judge Woods denied the motion for an extension of time to appeal. He also ruled that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied Xu permission to proceed without paying the required filing fees for the appeal.
The detailed version
- Xu v. Teneo · No. 1:25-cv-00109
- Gregory Woods
- Oct. 24, 2025
Background
Junsai Xu filed the first complaint in this matter in the Eastern District of New York. The case was later transferred to the Southern District of New York. On May 27, 2025, the court ordered Xu to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failing to serve process within the time required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). On June 28, 2025, the court dismissed the complaint without prejudice and entered judgment.
On October 23, 2025, Xu filed a motion under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) seeking more time to file a notice of appeal. He also filed a notice of appeal. Because Xu was representing himself, the court considered his submissions related to the appeal when deciding the motion.
Reasoning
In a civil case, a party ordinarily has 30 days after entry of the judgment or order to file a notice of appeal. A court may extend that period only if the motion is filed within the additional time allowed by Rule 4(a)(5) and the party shows either “excusable neglect” or “good cause.”
The court calculated that Xu’s ordinary deadline to appeal was July 28, 2025, and that his deadline to seek an extension was August 27, 2025. Because Xu filed his motion on October 23, 2025, the court found it untimely.
The court also found that Xu had not shown good cause or excusable neglect. Xu asserted that he had not received the June 28 order until October 21, 2025. The court did not credit that assertion because the order had been mailed by certified mail to the address Xu had provided, Xu had previously confirmed receiving another order at that address, and a later letter appeared to respond to the June 28 order. The court also noted that Xu gave no explanation for his delay in filing the notice of appeal. It treated the lack of an explanation as dispositive of the excusable-neglect issue.
Ruling
Judge Woods denied Xu’s motion for an extension of time to file his appeal. The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying the required fees for purposes of an appeal. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the pending motion and mail Xu a copy of the order by certified mail.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.