Grant v. The City of Roanoke, VA, No. 7:2016cv00007 - Document 72 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 12/13/2019. (ams)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
ctsv sOFFICEùs.DlsT.cœ RT ATROAN6KE,vA FILED IN THE UNITED STATESDISTW CT COURT 2EC 13 2219 FO R T H E W ESTE RN D ISTRICT O F W RGIN IA JULA C UDLEM cuEM RO AN O U D IW SIO N BY; o c Rx M ARK T.GRAN T , Plaintiffy CivilAcdon N o.7:16-CV -00007 V. By:H on.M ichaelF.U rbansld CITY O F RO AN O U , ChiefUnited StatesDisttictJudge D efendant. M E M O R AN D UM O PIN ION PlaindffM ark T.G zant,proceeding pm . K ,hasm oved to reopen the tim e to file an . appealunderFederalRuleofAppellatePtocedure4(a)(6).Themodonhasbeen6xllybdefed and isripe fordisposidon.Forthereasons setfot'th below,them odon isGRAN T ED . 1. Onlanuaty11,2016,GtantRedtbisacdontmdez42U.S.C.j1983againsttheCityof Roanokettheffcitf7),allegingthattheCityimproperlyretnined $26,257.30 from thesaleof certain realproperty.The property atissuewaspreviously rehabilitated for occupancy using funds awarded to the City thtough the federalH O M E InvesM entPattnerships Progtam . Gzant clnim ed that the City violated reguladons im plem ene g the H O M E lnvestm ent Grant v. The City of Roanoke, VA PnttnershipsAct(TTHOME Act'')andllisrighttodueprocess. Doc. 72 Thecasewasitlidally assigned to SeniorUnited StatesDistrictludgeGlen E.Contad. UnJuly 18,2017,JudgeContad ruled thatGranthad no viableclnim fordamagesunderthe HOME Actitselforj1983 forallegedvioladonsoftheActanditsimplemene greguladons. Accordingly,JudgeConradgzantedtheCitfsmodon forslxmmaryjudgmentwithrespectto Dockets.Justia.com thoseclqims.TheCitythen flledasupplementalmodon forsummaryjudgmenton Gtant's dtèeprocessclnims,whichludgeConzadgtantedin pattand deniedin part. 'Fhecasew assubsequently transferred to theundetsigned foztheconductofallfurther proceelings.O n M arch 19,2019, following a bench trial,the court entered a finalotdet gtantingjudgmentto theCityon thesoleremniningclnim fozvioladon ofprocedutaldue P'OCeSS. O n Septem ber11,2019,G rantflled anoéceofappealand am odon forleave to appeal ffwithin thetimeprovided forin Rule4(a)(6).''Mot.forLeavetoAppeal,Dkt.No.64,at1. G rantexplained thathehad notreceived nodce from theClerk'soffkeoftheentryofthehnal order,and thathedidnotleazn thatthefinalorderhadbeen enteredundlluly25,2019,when he received an em ailfrom the City teferencing the order.In response to thatem ail,G rant inquized asto ffwhatCourtorder''theCitywasreferring.Li at2 (internalquotadonmarks onùtted).On July 26,2019,the City forwatded GrantPDF copies of the fmalorder and accom panym ' g m em orandum opinion viaem ail. On O ctobez 16,2019,the couttconsttued G rant'sm oéon asa m odon to reopen the timeto ftleanappealpursuanttoFedezalRuleofAppellateProcedure4(a)(6),and directedthe Cityto respond.O n O ctobet30,2019,the City flled a response in opposidon to them oion along with severalexlzibits,inclucling copiesofthe patdes'em ailcom m unicadonsregarcling the hnalozdez.G rantfiled areply briefin supportofthem oéon on N ovem ber12,2019. II. A partyitaacivilacùongenerallyhas30daysfrom theentryofahnaljudgmentorordez to ftleanodceofappeal.28U.S.C.j2107(a);Fed.R.App.P.4(a)(1)(A).TdDistrictcolzrtshave 2 lim ited authorityto grantan extension ofthe30-day tim epetiod.''Bowlesv.Russell,551 U.S. 205,208(2007).Asrelevanthere,Tfdistrictcourtshavethestatm oryauthodtytograntmodons toreopen thetimefoz6lingan appeal''ifcertnin condidonsatemet.Id.(citing28U.S.C. j2107(c)).ThisstatutoryauthorityiscardedintopracdcebyRule4(a)(6)oftheFederalRules ofAppellateProcedute,1 ,whichprovidesasfollows: The clistdct courtm ay reopen the fim e to flle an appeal for a period of 14 days after the date when its order to reopen is enteted,butonly ifallthefollowing condidonsare sadsfied: (A)the coutthndsthatthemoving pat'tydid notreceive nodceunderFederalRuleofCivilProcedure77(d)ofthe entry ofthejudgmentorordersoughtto be appealed within 21 daysaftetentry; (B)themodonisSledwithin 180daysaftetthejudgment oz order is entered or within 14 days after the m oving party receives nodce under Federal Rule of Civil Procedme77(d)oftheentry,wllichevetiseatliet;and (C)thecourtfindsthatnopartywouldbeprejudiced. Fed.R.App.P.4(a)(6). Priorto addtessing themeritsofGrant'smodon underRule4(a)(6),thecouttmust confit. m thatithasjurisdicdon to considezit.lOn thesame day thatthe modon wasfiled, G rantalso ftled a nodceofappeal.Asageneralrule,the filing ofa nodce ofappealtransfers judsdicdon overallmattersrelating to the appealfrom the districtcourtto thecouttof appeals.L tlev.Grifûth,240 F.3d 404,407 n.2 (4th Cir.2001).However,f<(a)disttictcourt doesnotlosej'xtisdicdontoptoceed astomattetsitlaidoftheappeal.''Id.(internalquotaéon marks and citaéon onlitted).Courts have recognl 'zed that such mattets include m odons 1TheCityargues,withoutdti ngatlyauthority,thatthiscolzrtlacksjurisdicdontohearthemodon. 3 pertainingtothedming ofanappeal,includingmoéonsunderRule4(a)(6).SeeC enterv. Sizer,14F.App'x242,242 (4th Cir.2001)(noting,inthecontextofamotion toreopenthe appealperiod,thatthedistdctcotutretainsjudsdicdon overmattetsin aid ofthe appeal); M lm d v.Philadel hiaShedffD e 't,N o.2:96-cv-07925,1997 U.S.D ist.LEM S 10403,at*3, n.3 (E.D.Pa.July 21,1997) (noting thatthe districtcourthad jurisdicdon to decidethe plainéff'smodon to reopen theappealperiod,Kddespitehisflling ofanodceofappeal');see alsoc.f.UnitedStatesv.Withers,638F.3d1055,1062(9t.hCir.2011)(holdingthatanodceof appealfçshould have been generously construed as170th a noéce ofappealand a m odon to reopen the tim e forfiling an appeal,''and thatthem odon to reopen should havebeen granted bythedisttictcourt).Consistentwith theforegoing decisions,thecouttconcludesthatithas jurisdicdon to ruleon Grant'smotion to reopentheappealperiod. Thecotzrtnow turnsto themeritsofthemodon.Asindicated above,Rule4(a)(6) petvnitsa distzictcouttto reopen the tim eto file an appealifthree requirem entsarem et.For thefollowing teasons,the courtconcludesthateach requitem entissatisfed in thiscase. Fitst,the cotut finds thatGrantffdid notreceive nodce under FedetalRule of Civil Procedure77(d)oftheentryofthejudgmentorordetsoughttobeappealedwitbin21days aftetentrp''Fed.R.App.4(a)(6)(A).Thecourtentered itsfmalorderon March 19,2019. UnderRule77(d),theCletk'sofhcewasrequiredto immediately ffservenodceoftheentry,as providedinRule5q$,77andfTrecord theserdceon thedocket.''Fed.R.Civ.P.77(d).Because K ,the Clerk'soffice provided nodce ofthe entty ofotherorders Grantlidgated the caseg:q . - by m ailing copies of the orders to Grant's physical m niling addzess.See Fed.R. Civ.P. 5(b)(2)(C)(permitdngsereicebyzegularmailto aparty'slastknown addzess).However,Grant 4 m aintainsthathe did notreceivea copy ofthecourt'sfinalorderfrom theClerk'soffce,and thereisno docketentry reflece g thatthe Clerk's office m ailed a copy ofthe Enalorderto Grant.U nderthese circlzm stances,the couttfm dsthatG tantm eets the fttstrequitem entfot reliefunderRule4(a)(6). The second requirem ent- tim eliness- isalso saésfied hete.2 A review ofthe docket confit'm sthatG rantftled theinstantm odon within 180 daysaftetthe cout'tentered the final order,andthereisno evidencethatGranteverffreceiveld)noticeunderElkule77(d)qofthe ently''as reqlAired to tdgger the alteznadve 14-day deadline.Fed.R.App.P.4(a)(6)(B). AlthoughGrantobtainedacopyofthefinalorderfrom theC# viaemailonJuly26,2019, thatdoesnotm ean thatG rantreceived propernodce ofthe entry ofthatorder undetRule 77(d).See Phillisv.Sec' Fla.De 'tofCorr.,777 F.Appi 355,358 (11+ Cit.2019) (explniningthatTflkule4(a)(6)wasamendedin2005toclatifythatonlyaformalnodceofthe entry ofa judgment ot order,asprescdbed by FederalRule of CivilPtocedlzte 77(d), consétutesproperfnotice ofthe entrf ofa judgment'') (cidng Fed.R.App.P.4(a)(6), AdvisoryCommitteenoteto2005amend.).Rule77(d)providesthatapartyffmayservenodce oftheenttyasprovidedinRule5q$.':Fed.R.Civ.P.77(d).Rule59$,inturn,pe= itsservice ofpapersbyelectronic m eansonlyifaperson consentsto such servicein wridng.SeeFed.R. Civ.P.5(1$(2)7, ).BecausethereisnoevidenceindicatingthatGrantconsentedinwritingto electronicservice,thecourtconcludesthattheCity'sJuly26,2019em ailwasnotsufikientto ttiggerthe 14-dayperiod underRule4(a)(6)(B).Consequently,Granthad 180 daysfrom the 2Inarguitzgtothecontrary,theC# citestotherequirementsofFederalRuleofAppellateProcedme 4(a)(5),asepuateanddistitzctprovisionthatpet-mitsdistdctcourtstoextendthetimetoftleanodceofappeal ifcertain condidonsarem et.The City does notaddresswhethe, r Granttim ely m oved to reopen the appeal periodunderRule4(a)(6). 5 entty ofthe hnalorder to m ove to reopen the appealperiod,and he hled hism odon witbin thattim e fram e. Theremainingconsideradon iswhetherany f<pattywouldbeprejudiced''ifthecourt reopensthetimetoftleanappeal.Fed.R.App.P.4(a)(6)(C).TTrejudicey''forptuposesofRule 4(a)(6)(C),isdehnedasffsomeadverseconsequenceotherthanthecostofhavingtooppose theappealandencountertheriskoftevetsal.''Fed.R.App.4(a)(6),AdvisoryCommitteenote to 1991nm end.In thiscase,thecouzthasno reason to believethatteopening thetim eto ftle an appealwould resultin any consequencesotherthan the costand tim eitw olved in liégating theappeal.Becausesuch consequencesarepresentitzeveryappeal,thecout' tfindsthatneither partywould beprejudicedbythereopeningoftheappealperiod.Ld-s 111. Forthesereasons,thecourthndsthatGtanthassadshed alltllteerequirem entsunder Rule4(a)(6).Accol/ingly,Grant'smodontoteopenthetimetoftleanappeal(ECFNo.64)is GRAN TED .Because anodce ofappealhasalready been docketed,G tantdoesnotneed to ftle anew nodce ofappeal.An appropdate O rderwillbeentered. Entered:l7//J/?1 4 /* 4 2 /.W M ichael#.Utba ' C ' 'te tatesDistdctludgè 6
]]>
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.
