Baker v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP
- Judith McCarthy
- 7:21-cv-10629
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Baker v. Wal-Mart Stores East, Judge McCarthy denied Baker’s late appeal-extension motion and denied her fee-waiver request as moot.
Holly Baker’s ability to obtain more time to appeal and to proceed without paying court fees; Wal-Mart Stores East, LP opposed the extension request.
What happened
In Baker v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, Holly Baker asked for more time to appeal the court’s August 1, 2023 decision granting summary judgment to Wal-Mart. She also asked to proceed without paying court fees during the appeal. Although Baker had been represented by attorneys throughout the lawsuit, she personally filed these motions.
The court explained that a notice of appeal generally must be filed within 30 days, and a request for more time must also be made within that period. Baker did neither by the August 31 deadline. The court also found that her filings did not show a legally acceptable reason for the delay and did not explain conflicting dates on the documents and mailing envelope.
Judge McCarthy denied Baker’s motion for an extension of time as untimely. Because the appeal deadline had passed and no extension was granted, the court also denied her motion to proceed without paying court fees as moot. The court further stated that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal of this order.
The detailed version
- Baker v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP · No. 7:21-cv-10629
- Judith McCarthy
- Oct. 11, 2023
Background
Holly Baker moved on October 2, 2023, for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal from the court’s August 1, 2023 opinion and order granting summary judgment to Wal-Mart Stores East, LP. A notice of appeal was also filed on October 2. Baker separately moved to proceed without paying court fees during the appeal. Wal-Mart opposed the extension motion.
The opinion states that Baker had been represented by counsel throughout the lawsuit, but that she personally submitted the motions at issue here.
Reasoning
The court applied Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a). It stated that a notice of appeal generally must be filed within 30 days after entry of the order being appealed. A court may extend that deadline only when the request is made within the applicable 30-day period and the moving party shows either a legally acceptable reason for the delay or good cause.
The deadline to seek an extension from the August 1 order was August 31, 2023. Baker did not file her notice of appeal or seek an extension by that date. The motion was dated August 30, but the envelope was postmarked September 26 and the court received it on October 2. The notice of appeal was dated September 13 and was mailed in the same envelope. The court also found that Baker did not explain the conflicting dates, why the notice of appeal was late, or why the extension request was late. Her statement that she would have an operation related to the case at an unspecified future time did not establish a legally acceptable reason or good cause.
Rulings
The court denied Baker’s motion for an extension of time to file her notice of appeal as untimely. It also denied her motion to proceed without paying court fees during the appeal as moot because the appeal deadline had passed and no extension would be granted.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied fee-free status for purposes of appealing this order. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the two pending motions and mail Baker a copy of the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.