Cano v. SEIU. Local 32BJ
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:19-cv-08810
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Cano v. SEIU, Local 32BJ, Judge Engelmayer extended Cano’s appeal deadline to September 27, 2023, finding his two-day delay excusable.
Jesus M. Cano received additional time to appeal; the defendants were affected by the extended appeal deadline.
What happened
In Cano v. SEIU, Local 32BJ, the court had previously granted the defendants’ summary-judgment motion and dismissed Jesus M. Cano’s action with prejudice. Judgment was entered on July 28, 2023, making August 28 the deadline to appeal. Cano did not file an appeal by that date.
Cano asked for more time on August 30, saying he had been unable to pay the filing fee. Judge Engelmayer found that Cano’s motion was timely and that his two-day delay caused little prejudice. The judge also found Cano’s explanation reasonable, considering his lack of a lawyer and possible confusion about requesting permission to appeal without paying the fee.
Judge Engelmayer granted Cano’s motion and extended the deadline to file an appeal to September 27, 2023. The order did not change the earlier judgment dismissing Cano’s action.
The detailed version
- Cano v. SEIU. Local 32BJ · No. 1:19-cv-08810
- Paul Engelmayer
- Sept. 5, 2023
Background
On July 27, 2023, the court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed Jesus M. Cano’s action with prejudice. The Clerk entered judgment on July 28, 2023. Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1), Cano ordinarily had 30 days from entry of judgment to file a notice of appeal. Because the thirtieth day fell on a Sunday, the deadline was August 28, 2023. Cano did not file a notice of appeal by that date.
On August 30, 2023, Cano moved under Rule 4(a)(5) for an extension of the appeal deadline. He stated that he had been unable to pay the filing fee until then.
Legal standard
Rule 4(a)(5) permits a court to extend the appeal deadline if the motion is filed within the additional period allowed by the rule and the court finds either good cause or excusable neglect. The court explained that good cause applies when the delay results from circumstances outside the party’s control, while excusable neglect applies when the party bears some responsibility for the delay but the neglect can reasonably be excused.
The court considered the length of the delay, possible prejudice to the defendants, the reason for the delay and whether it was within Cano’s control, and whether Cano acted in good faith. It gave particular weight to the reason for the delay.
Court’s analysis
The court found that Cano’s motion was timely because the additional 30-day period had not expired. It treated Cano’s failure to file on time as neglect rather than a circumstance supporting good cause because he could have filed a notice of appeal and simultaneously asked to proceed without paying the filing fee.
The court nevertheless found the neglect excusable. The delay was only two days, the defendants faced little prejudice, and the court had no reason to doubt Cano’s good faith. The court also found his confusion understandable because he was representing himself and might reasonably have believed that he could not request permission to appeal without paying the fee if he expected to have money within a few weeks.
Disposition
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer granted Cano’s motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. The court extended the deadline to September 27, 2023. The order stated that Cano could still ask for permission to proceed without paying the filing fee if he remained unable to pay. This order addressed only the appeal deadline and did not alter the earlier judgment dismissing the action with prejudice.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.