Stoncor Group, Inc. v. Peerless Insurance Company
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:16-cv-04574-LAK-GWG
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Stoncor Group v. Peerless Insurance, Judge Kaplan denied Peerless’s requests to extend or reopen the appeal deadline because counsel failed to monitor the docket.
Peerless Insurance Company and its counsel were affected: the court denied the requested extension or reopening of the time to appeal, as well as the request for oral argument.
What happened
Stoncor Group, Inc. v. Peerless Insurance Company involved Peerless’s request for more time to appeal a judgment. Peerless’s counsel said he did not receive the electronic notice that the judgment had been entered, although counsel had received notice of an order directing the clerk to enter it.
The court said counsel should have checked the case docket, especially because the parties had stipulated to the judgment amount and counsel expected the judgment to be entered promptly. The court found no sufficient reason to extend the deadline based on excusable neglect and decided that counsel’s failure to monitor the docket justified denying relief even if the requirements for reopening the deadline were met.
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan denied Peerless’s motion to extend or reopen the time to file a notice of appeal and also denied Peerless’s motion for oral argument.
The detailed version
- Stoncor Group, Inc. v. Peerless Insurance Company · No. 1:16-cv-04574-LAK-GWG
- Lewis Kaplan
- Dec. 9, 2022
Background
After a judgment was entered following the parties’ stipulation about the judgment amount and prejudgment interest, Peerless Insurance Company moved for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. Peerless relied on Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) and, alternatively, Rule 4(a)(6). Its counsel asserted that he had not received the electronic filing notice for the judgment.
The court noted that counsel had received electronic notice of Magistrate Judge Gorenstein’s order directing the clerk to enter the judgment. That order left only the ministerial act of entering the judgment. The clerk entered the judgment the next day, but counsel and his associates did not check the docket for nearly two months. Counsel learned of the judgment from opposing counsel on November 25 and filed the motion on November 28.
Rule 4(a)(5)
Rule 4(a)(5) allows a district court to extend the appeal deadline when the moving party shows either good cause or excusable neglect. The court explained that good cause applies when circumstances outside the party’s control caused the need for an extension, while excusable neglect applies when the relevant circumstances were within the party’s control.
The court found that good cause did not apply because the problem resulted from counsel’s failure to follow the court’s instructions to monitor the docket. It also declined to find excusable neglect. The court emphasized that counsel should have expected the judgment to be entered promptly after signing the stipulation and had in fact described the judgment as expected. The court cited its practice rules and the district’s electronic filing rules, which make counsel responsible for regularly reviewing the docket.
Rule 4(a)(6)
Rule 4(a)(6) allows a court to reopen the time to appeal when the party did not receive notice of the judgment, filed the motion within the required period, and reopening would not prejudice another party. The court assumed, without deciding, that these requirements were satisfied. It nevertheless declined to reopen the appeal period because Peerless’s counsel was at fault for failing to file a timely notice of appeal.
Disposition
The court denied Peerless’s letter motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal and denied its separate letter motion for oral argument. The opinion addresses the appeal deadline and related motion practice, not the merits of the underlying judgment.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.