Narrative Opinion Summary
Plaintiffs-appellants Eastwood Auto Body and Garage, Inc., sought in banc review after a panel of the Court denied their request for additional time to file a petition for rehearing. The Court has the authority under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26(b) to extend the time for filing such petitions for good cause, even if the original time has expired. However, the decision to grant such motions is discretionary. Citing precedent, the Court noted that previous requests for extensions based on changes in law have been denied as attempts to reopen final judgments. The Court observed a pattern of repeated defaults and delays by the appellants, which it characterized as wasteful of judicial resources and detrimental to the civility between counsel. As the appellants failed to present compelling evidence that their case warranted further review, the motion for in banc review was denied, and the mandate was issued immediately.
Legal Issues Addressed
Denial of In Banc Reviewsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellants' motion for in banc review was denied due to their inability to demonstrate sufficient grounds for further review.
Reasoning: As the appellants failed to present compelling evidence that their case warranted further review, the motion for in banc review was denied, and the mandate was issued immediately.
Extension of Time for Filing Petitions under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26(b)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court has discretion to extend filing deadlines for petitions for good cause, but such extensions are not granted if they appear to reopen final judgments.
Reasoning: The Court has the authority under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26(b) to extend the time for filing such petitions for good cause, even if the original time has expired. However, the decision to grant such motions is discretionary.
Judicial Discretion in Granting Extensionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court exercised its discretion to deny the appellants' request for an extension, citing a lack of compelling evidence and a pattern of delays.
Reasoning: The Court observed a pattern of repeated defaults and delays by the appellants, which it characterized as wasteful of judicial resources and detrimental to the civility between counsel.