Deadline "Slipping Through the Cracks" Because of Overwork Does Not Justify Extension of Time to Appeal

04 January 2012 Wisconsin Appellate Law Blog

The Seventh Circuit today provided a bit more clarity to the standards governing extensions of the time to file a notice of appeal after the expiration of the 30-day deadline. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5). Plaintiff’s counsel in Sherman v. Quinn missed the 30-day deadline by 3 days. He successfully asked the district court for more time within the subsequent 30-day period in which Rule 4 allows district courts to extend the appeal deadline. In support of the request, he told the district court that the deadline had “‘slipped through the cracks’ due to demands on his time from his ballot-qualified candidacy for Governor of Illinois in the November 2010 general election.” According the Court of Appeals, counsel further pleaded that “the demands of the run ‘completely overwhelmed my capacity to complete all tasks before me’” and he was “‘working without a legal assistant of any kind.’” The Seventh Circuit dismissed the appeal as untimely, ruling that the district court abused its discretion in granting the extension.

The Court explained that whether a request to extend the appeal deadline requires a showing of excusable neglect or only “good cause” no longer depends on whether the request is made before or after the initial 30-day deadline passes. The governing standard instead depends on whether the need for an extension is the fault of the movant, in which case the excusable-neglect standard applies, or results from circumstances beyond the movant’s control, in which case the good-cause standard applies. By way of example, the Court offered that “good cause” might justify an extension necessitated by the Postal Service’s failure to deliver a notice of appeal, but excusable neglect must be shown if, as here, the events requiring the extension were within the movant’s or his counsel’s control.

The Court concluded that blowing the deadline as a result of being too busy is alone insufficient to authorize the district court to extend the deadline. In so holding, the Court distinguished precedents that appeared to allow an extension under similar circumstances as involving some additional factor—error induced by the opposition or, in the case of a deadline missed by appointed counsel, an “overcommitment [that] was due to what can only be described as an excess of public service and altruism.” The Court ruled that counsel’s decision “to run for public office” was different because it might “be based on a variety of considerations, and altruism could be far down the list.”

Seemingly, if one cannot show excessive altruism as a cause for needing more time to appeal, one is best served by being able to blame others for that need.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

New York Expands Pay Equity Law
22 July 2019
Labor & Employment Law Perspectives
The Face of DOL is New, the Name is Not; Trump Picks Scalia for Secretary of Labor
22 July 2019
Labor & Employment Law Perspectives
A Review of Recent Whistleblower Developments
19 July 2019
Legal News: Whistleblower Developments
Cloud security inadequate for Cyber threats, are you surprised?
19 July 2019
Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
2019 NDI Executive Exchange
14-15 November 2019
Chicago, IL
MAGI’s Clinical Research Conference
29 October 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Association for Corporate Counsel Annual Meeting 2019
27-30 October 2019
Phoenix, AZ