Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 7, 2021

Zhang v. Zhang

Judge
Lorna Schofield
Docket
1:16-cv-04013
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedureFee Petition
In one sentence

In Zhang v. Zhang, Judge Schofield denied Plaintiffs’ request to extend the deadline for filing a notice of appeal.

Who this affects

Plaintiffs and their counsel, whose request for additional time to file a notice of appeal was denied.

What happened

In Zhang v. Zhang, Plaintiffs asked for more time to appeal an order awarding attorneys’ fees and costs to both sides.

Plaintiffs’ counsel said he did not notice the order because it was placed in his email “Promotions” folder, and an injury kept him from checking email for several days. The court found that Plaintiffs had not shown excusable neglect or good cause because counsel could have checked the folder and ultimately found the email there.

Judge Schofield denied Plaintiffs’ motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal and directed the Clerk of Court to close the related docket entry.

The detailed version

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

Case
Zhang v. Zhang · No. 1:16-cv-04013
Judge
Lorna Schofield
Date
May 7, 2021

Background

On March 26, 2021, the court adopted, with modifications, a magistrate judge’s recommendation concerning the parties’ requests for attorneys’ fees and costs. Plaintiffs were awarded $100,203.64, and Defendants were awarded $67,802.94.

On May 4, 2021, Plaintiffs and their counsel moved for an extension of the deadline to file a notice of appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5). Counsel said he received the order but did not notice it because the email was placed in his “Promotions” folder, which he described as similar to a spam folder. Counsel also said an injury prevented him from checking email for several days after the order was issued.

Legal standard

Rule 4(a)(5) allows a district court to extend the appeal deadline only if the party shows either “excusable neglect” or “good cause.” Excusable neglect applies when there was fault that can be excused; good cause applies when there was no fault. The court explained that the relevant circumstances include whether the reason for the delay was within the party’s reasonable control.

Court’s reasoning

The court held that Plaintiffs did not show excusable neglect. Counsel’s failure to check the Promotions folder for more than a month did not meet that standard. The court also held that Plaintiffs did not show good cause. Even if delivery of the email to that folder was outside counsel’s control, access to the email in the folder was within his control, as shown by his ability to find the email on May 3, 2021.

Disposition

Judge Schofield denied Plaintiffs’ motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. The Clerk of Court was directed to close Docket No. 334.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.