Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled May 22, 2020

Romano v. Unknown Internal Revenue Service Agents

Judge
William Alsup
Docket
3:19-cv-07172
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Romano v. Unknown Internal Revenue Service Agents, Judge Alsup denied Romano’s late request for more time to appeal.

Who this affects

Thomas J. Romano, whose request for additional time to file a notice of appeal was denied.

What happened

Romano v. Unknown Internal Revenue Service Agents involved Thomas J. Romano’s request for 60 more days to file a notice of appeal from a judgment entered February 13.

Romano filed the request on April 28, 75 days after the judgment. He cited delays and shutdowns caused by the coronavirus, but the court found no applicable exception. The court also said Romano had received timely notice of the judgment and therefore could not use the statutory exception for people who did not receive that notice.

Judge William H. Alsup denied the motion. This order addressed only the request for more time to appeal.

The detailed version

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

Case
Romano v. Unknown Internal Revenue Service Agents · No. 3:19-cv-07172
Judge
William Alsup
Date
May 22, 2020

Background

Thomas J. Romano moved for a 60-day extension to file a notice of appeal. The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure gave him 30 days from the February 13 entry of judgment to file that notice. He sent his motion by certified mail on April 28, which was 75 days after judgment. His motion stated that the extension was necessary because the coronavirus had caused delays and shutdowns, but it did not address why the motion was late or identify an applicable exception.

Court’s reasoning

The court said that the deadline for filing a notice of appeal is jurisdictional, meaning the court’s authority to consider the appeal depends on compliance with that deadline. It relied on decisions holding that equitable exceptions are not available. The court considered a statutory exception for a person who did not receive timely notice of the judgment, but found that Romano had received notice by first-class mail on the same day judgment was entered.

Ruling

Judge William H. Alsup denied Romano’s motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. The order ruled on the extension request and did not address the underlying claims against the defendants.

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.