Frank Summa, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Energy Conservation Products, Inc., Defendant-appellee, 864 F.2d 148 (Fed. Cir. 1988)

DECISION

The "Memorandum Opinion and Order" of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, 85 Civ. 1766 (CSH) (Jan. 15, 1988), denying Frank A. Summa's motion for an order extending the time to file a notice of appeal, is affirmed.

OPINION

On August 10, 1987, the district court granted Energy Conservation Products, Inc.'s (ECP) motion for summary judgment and dismissed Summa's complaint. Under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after the date of entry of the judgment or within 60 days "upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause." Fed. R. App. P. 4(a) (1), (5). The time limits imposed by Rule 4 are not merely procedural requirements waivable at the discretion of the court, but rather are "mandatory and jurisdictional" in nature. Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978). Summa failed to take any action with respect to filing an appeal until almost 90 days after the entry of judgment. No matter how excusable the neglect, the district court could not expand the 60 day time limit of Rule 4(a) (5). Accordingly, the district court properly denied Summa's motion for a time extension to file his appeal. See McCormack v. Schindler, 520 F.2d 358, 361 (2d Cir. 1975) (stating that Rule 4(a) (1), (5) requires "that no appeal can be taken unless something is done within 30 days after expiration of the period prescribed by the first paragraph no matter how excusable the neglect").

COSTS and SANCTIONS

Under the circumstances of this case, ECP's request for sanctions against Summa for filing a meritless appeal are denied. The parties shall bear their own costs.