Rivera v. Target Corp.

Background

Alondra Y. Rivera, representing herself, sued Target Corporation, its division Roundel, her former supervisor Quinn Nelson, and several other employees, alleging employment discrimination. The court had granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss on June 6, 2025. After Rivera did not file a proposed amended complaint, the court entered judgment for Defendants on July 15, 2025.

The order addressed Rivera’s motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal and her motion for permission to proceed without paying the required fees on appeal. Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1), Rivera’s notice of appeal was due by August 14, 2025. She filed her extension request on September 4, 2025, within the additional 30-day period allowed by Rule 4(a)(5).

Reasons for the Delay

Rivera attributed the missed deadline to increased caregiving responsibilities for her partner after surgery, her participation in another case in Bronx County Civil Court, and the timing of postal delivery. She said she received a physical copy of the judgment during the week the notice of appeal was due.

The court explained that an extension under Rule 4(a)(5) requires a showing of “excusable neglect” or “good cause.” It treated Rivera’s explanations under the excusable-neglect standard because they indicated some degree of fault and showed that she knew about the deadline and could have filed before it expired. The court said the party seeking an extension bears the burden of proving excusable neglect.

The court considered the factors used to evaluate excusable neglect: possible prejudice to the opposing party, the length and effect of the delay, the reason for the delay and whether it was within the movant’s reasonable control, and whether the movant acted in good faith. It found no meaningful prejudice to Defendants and said the record suggested Rivera acted in good faith. But it treated the reason for the delay as the decisive factor.

Ruling

The court concluded that Rivera’s reasons for the delay were reasonably within her control. It stated that a busy schedule was not enough to justify an exception, that choosing to prioritize another case did not establish excusable neglect, and that receiving the judgment during the week of the deadline still left reasonable time to file a notice of appeal.

The court therefore DENIED Rivera’s motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. Because it denied that motion, it also DENIED Rivera’s motion for leave to proceed without paying fees on appeal. The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, so fee-free appeal status was denied for that appeal. The clerk was directed to close the motions at Docket Numbers 32 and 33 and mail Rivera a copy of the order.