Maduke v. Capital One Financial Corporation et al, No. 8:2016cv00767 - Document 29 (D. Md. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 5/10/2017. (c/m 5/11/2017 aos, Deputy Clerk)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Maduke v. Capital One Financial Corporation et al Doc. 29 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR TIlE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND Southern m"isioll I 1..' I I * NGOZI MADUKWE, * Plaintiff, * ". * Case No.: G.JH-16-7()7 CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, £'f'II., * Defendants. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * MEMORANDUM OPINION I'laintiffNgozi Court's dismissal unncccssary. ofhcr Madukwc moves f(lr an extcnsion e1aims in the abovc-referenccd oftimc to Iilc an appcal from thc case. ECF No. 27. A hcaring is Loc. R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2016). For the rcasons statcd below. thc Court will grant I'lainti ff s motion. I. DISCUSSION Thc timely Iiling of a not icc of appcal is "mandatory !Jallkillg & hilS/ Co.. No. CY [1.11-13-1968. (citing Blldillich \'. Bee/Oil /)ickin,wI and jurisdictional." 2016 WI. 4492706. & Co.. 486 U.S. 196.203 Ward \'. !Jrallch at *2 (I). Md. Aug. 25. 2016) (1988)). Pursuant to Fcd. R. App. P. 4(a)( I )(A). a party must file a notice of appcal as rcquircd by Fcd. R. App. P. 3 within 30 days alicr the cntry of the District Court's final judgmcnt. unlcss the District Court cxtcnds thc appcal pcriod undcr Fcd. R. App. 1'. 4(a)(5). or reopcns the appcal pcriod undcr Fed. R. App. 1'. 4(a)(6). Undcr Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5). thc District Court may cxtcnd thc timc to file a notice of appcal if a party moves i()r an "cxtcnsion of tim c" at a timc "no latcr than 30 days alier thc timc Dockets.Justia.com prescribed by this Rule 4('1) expires:' good cause:' 4(a)(5)(A)(i). and ..that party shows excusable 4(a)(5)(A)(ii). Here. Plaintiffs time to file a notice of appeal expired on April 24. 2017. PlaintilTthen had until May 24. 2017 to move for an extension cause pursuant to Rule 4(a)(5)(A)(ii). of time based on excusable Because Plaintiff 2017. the Court tinds that her Motion for an Extension Next. the Court must consider Procedure interchangeable:' Amendments reflect. these standards citations tiled the instant motion on April 25. of Time was timely filed. omitted). Committee's ECF No. 27 Notes to the Federal Rules of occupy ""different domains" Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A)(ii). (internal neglect or good whether or not Plaintiff has offered a showing of excusahle neglect or good cause for the delay. As the Advisory Appellate neglect or advisory committee's The Committec and are ""not note to 2002 turther explained that. ItJhe excusable neglect standard applies in situations in which there is finl1t: in such situations. the need for an extension is usually occasioned by something within the control of the movant. The good cause standard applies in situations in which there is no fault -- excusable or otherwise. In such situations. the need for an extension is usually occasioned by something that is not within the control of the movant. Id To illustrate the difference in the standards. the Committee's notes describe a situation the postal service failed to deliver a notice of appeal. Id. In that situation. excusable linds that excusable at all:' Id. of her time to file an appeal because ofa death in her family on the date of the appeal deadline. because. good cause rather than neglect would apply because ... the movant may not have been neglectful Here. Plaintiff requests a one day extension where ECF No. 27. In this situation. neglect rather than good cause is the appropriate standard while a death in her ti1l11ilywas both tragic and outside Plaintiffs to wait until thc last day possible to filc her appeal was within her control. 2 the Court to employ control. her decision Excusable prejudice to the non-movant: proceedings: the movant: 1'. [inquiry]:' taking into eonsideration"( (2) the length of the delay and its potential (3) the reason fi)r the delay. including impact on judicial whether it was in the reasonable 2014 WL 5023214. control of I'illlleer 1111'. Sen's. at '" 1-2 (D, Md. Oct. 7. 2014 ) (quoting I3nll1.mick Assocs. Ltd I"shil', 507 U,S, 380.395 (1993)) (alteration in the original). The that. "laJs a general rule. the first two I'iolleer factors will favor the Fourth Circuit has explained moving party because the time limits inherent in Rule 4(a)(5) necessarily any prejudice I) the danger of the movant acted in good faith:' Shiller \', I'rillce Gellrge\' Oy .. No, and (4) \dlether PWG-13-3373. Co. neglect is an "equitable minimize the extent of or delay" and the fOUl1h factor. good faith is "seldom at issue:' S)'II1biollics Illc. 1'. Ortlieb. 432 F. i\pp'x 216. 219 (4th Cir. 2(11) (citing Silimllch \', Celebrity Cruises, IlIc.. 333 F.3d 355. 366 (2d Cir. 2003)), Thus. the reason for the delay is the "most important" Court to consider. Shiller. 2014 WL 5023214, at * 1-2 (quoting issue for the Thompsoll \'. £.1. DIIl'lIlIt de Nemollrs &- Co.. 76 FJd 530. 534 (4th Cir. 1996)), and"a district court should find excusable neglect only in the extl'llllrdillll/)' cases where injustiec would otherwise 432 F. App'x at 220 (emphasis As explained above. Plaintiff states that a death in her family caused her to file her notice her request for an extension of time one day alier of the appeal period. which was also only one day alier the death in her fllll1ily that caused the delay. Thus. this is not a situation become unresponsive. 542.548 Symhillllics IlIc.. in the original), of appeal one day late, Further. Plaintiffliled thc expiration result:' delaying where a party suffered a personal tragedy and then court proceedings. See lIarrillgtoll \'. City o(Chicagll. 433 F.3d (7th Cir. 2006) (death in Illll1ily not an excuse when counsel"kept the dark" during discovery proceedings.). Ilere, Plaintiffaetcd to Unf(lreSeen evcnts, Thus. while it would havc been prudent , .> opposing as quickly as possible lill' I'laintifTto counsel in in response have planned to lile her appeal more promptly. the Court tinds that she has made a suf1icient showing of excusable neglect and thus. will allow her to file her notice of appeal one day late. See Jones 1'. 0ianlof' Mwy/and. LLC, No. CIV.A.DKC 08-0304. 2010 WL 3677017. at *7 (D. Md. Sept. 17.2010) (granting motion to extend time due to the recent passing of counsel's family member and the minimal delay incurred by late tiling). II. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons. Plaintiffs Motion to Extend Appeal Deadline. ECF No. 27. is granted. A separate Order follows. /?;1 Dated: Mav 10.2017 -- Gf:ORGE J. HAZEL United States District Judge 4
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
