Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Green v. Service Contract Education and Training Trust Fund
Citations: 863 F. Supp. 2d 18; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75781Docket: Civil Action No. 2009-0738
Court: District Court, District of Columbia; May 31, 2012; Federal District Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Gordon Green, the plaintiff, filed a motion nunc pro tunc to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal regarding a February 13, 2012, dismissal of his complaint against several defendants under the False Claims Act (FCA). The United States declined to intervene in the case. Green submitted a notice of appeal 58 days after the final order, exceeding the 30-day limit for private FCA actions, which is confirmed by the Supreme Court's decision in United States ex rel. Eisenstein v. City of New York. His counsel acknowledged the untimeliness of the appeal, attributing it to a lack of awareness of the Eisenstein ruling and the complexity of the dismissal opinion, arguing for "excusable neglect." The defendants opposed the motion, noting that under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5)(A), an extension can only be granted if a motion is filed within 30 days after the appeal deadline. Green's deadline to appeal was March 14, 2012, making his extension motion, filed on May 1, 2012, untimely. Consequently, the court found no authority to grant relief, citing jurisdictional constraints and reaffirming that extensions cannot be granted beyond the prescribed time limits. Green argues that the district court can grant his late motion based on the D.C. Circuit's ruling in Anderson v. District of Columbia, which upheld a notice of appeal despite an error regarding the destination court. The Anderson case found that the plaintiff's notice complied with Rule 3(c) since it was clear where the appeal should go, but it did not support Green's claim that a district court can extend the time for filing an appeal beyond the statutory limit. Green contends that his notice was timely, filed within 60 days of the final order, and suggests a connection between his untimely motion for an extension and the notice of appeal. However, eleven circuits have ruled against treating a notice of appeal as a motion for an extension under Rule 4(a)(5), a position the D.C. Circuit has not yet addressed. The Supreme Court's decision in Bowles emphasizes that federal courts should not create equitable exceptions to the timely appeal requirement, a stance reinforced by the unanimous ruling in Eisenstein, which affirmed the dismissal of an appeal rather than allow for an untimely filing to be construed as a motion for extension. Consequently, Green’s motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal is denied.