Lee v. Black Entertainment Television, LLC

Background

The court had dismissed this action for failure to state a claim on March 6, 2020, and judgment was entered that day. On May 12, 2020, Lee filed three items: a motion under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal, a motion for permission to proceed without paying appellate filing fees, and a notice of appeal. The opinion states that Lee was representing herself when she filed those papers, although she had been represented by counsel when final judgment was entered.

Appeal deadline

Rule 4(a)(1)(A) generally requires a notice of appeal to be filed within 30 days after judgment. Lee’s notice was filed 67 days after judgment, making it untimely. Rule 4(a)(5)(A) permits an extension only if the motion is filed within 30 days after the original appeal deadline expires and the party shows good cause or excusable neglect. The court held that Lee’s motion was filed more than 30 days after the deadline, so the court could not grant an extension regardless of whether she had shown excusable neglect.

The court also rejected relief under Rule 4(a)(6), which can reopen the appeal period for 14 days when the party did not receive timely notice of the judgment and meets the rule’s other requirements. Lee did not claim that she failed to receive notice of the judgment within 21 days. The court further explained that the May 4 date written on Lee’s motion did not control because the motion was not filed until May 12 and entered on the docket on May 13.

Effect on jurisdiction

The court explained that a notice of appeal ordinarily removes the district court’s authority over matters covered by the notice. It concluded, however, that this rule did not apply because Lee’s notice was plainly unauthorized and the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction over the appeal.

Permission to proceed without paying fees

A trial court may deny permission to proceed without paying appellate fees when it certifies that the appeal was not taken in good faith. The court used an objective standard: an appeal is frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. It concluded that there was no non-frivolous basis for Lee’s appeal because the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction. It also relied on the earlier dismissal’s reasoning that Lee’s theory—that defendants copied an idea rather than protected expression—was not actionable, and that she had not registered some allegedly infringed materials before filing suit. The court also found frivolous any challenge to its decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Lee’s state-law claim after dismissing the federal claim.

Disposition

Judge Lewis A. Kaplan denied the motion for an extension of time and denied the motion for leave to proceed without paying fees. The court expressly stated that Lee’s state-law misappropriation-of-ideas claim had not been dismissed on its merits because the court declined supplemental jurisdiction. The opinion said nothing in the memorandum and order prevented Lee from pursuing that claim in state court.