Fellows v. Minnesota Association of Professional Employees

Background

The Minnesota Association of Professional Employees asked the court to reconsider its earlier order granting the plaintiffs a one-day extension to file a notice of appeal. The earlier order had been entered after the plaintiffs missed the 30-day appeal deadline required by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1).

The plaintiffs’ lawyers said they had recorded the appeal deadline based on the judgment date in a closely related lawsuit rather than the earlier judgment date in this case. The plaintiffs sought an extension four days after the deadline expired under Rule 4(a)(5), and the court granted the request before the defendant filed its opposition. The plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal the same day the extension was granted.

Legal standard

Rule 4(a)(5) allows a district court to extend the time to appeal when the request is filed within 30 days after the original deadline and the party shows either good cause or excusable neglect. Because the plaintiffs sought the extension after the original deadline had expired, the court applied the excusable-neglect standard.

The court considered the equitable factors identified by the Supreme Court: the risk of prejudice, the length and effect of the delay, the reason for the delay and whether it was within the party’s control, and whether the party acted in good faith. The court explained that the reason for the delay is the most important factor, but the other factors must also be considered.

Court’s analysis

The defendant relied on an earlier Eighth Circuit decision involving counsel’s incorrect calculation of an appeal deadline. In that case, the court found only ordinary attorney inattention and held that the mistake did not qualify as excusable neglect.

The court distinguished that decision. It found that the plaintiffs’ lawyers had not misunderstood the appeal rules; instead, they mistakenly relied on the judgment date in a related case that had been entered several days later. The court considered this more like an Eighth Circuit case in which a computer program produced a deadline one day late. In the court’s view, the plaintiffs’ lawyers made a mistake while trying to comply with the rules, and such carelessness can qualify as excusable neglect.

The court also noted that the plaintiffs sought relief only four days after the deadline, filed their notice of appeal immediately after receiving the extension, and showed no indication of bad faith. The court found no meaningful prejudice to the defendant. It concluded that denying the extension would unfairly forfeit the plaintiffs’ appeal rights.

Disposition

The court denied the Minnesota Association of Professional Employees’ Motion for Reconsideration. The earlier order granting the plaintiffs’ extension to file their notice of appeal therefore remained in effect. This order addressed the appeal deadline and the extension, not the merits of the underlying dispute.

Judge

Judge Susan Richard Nelson signed the order on March 25, 2021.