New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

Appeals — No Jurisdiction to Review Arguments That Should’ve Been, But Weren’t, Raised in Prior Direct Appeal — Untimely 2d Motion for Reconsideration Doesn’t Toll Deadline for Filing Appeal

Download PDF

Lora v. NHS, Inc., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 19333 (3d Cir. Oct. 26, 2016):

Yenny Lora and Mercedes Palma appeal the imposition of costs, and their attorney, Raul Jauregui, appeals the imposition of sanctions. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania imposed those costs and sanctions for abuse of the discovery process. For the reasons that follow, we will dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

I. Background

While litigating this Title VII and False Claims Act dispute, Lora, Palma, and [*2]  Jauregui systematically acted in bad faith during discovery. Despite repeated and specific warnings, they continued their contumacious behavior, including refusing to comply with discovery orders. As a consequence, the District Court exercised its discretion under Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(v)1 and dismissed all claims with prejudice, allocated all costs to Lora and Palma, and imposed personal sanctions against Jauregui. The District Court entered final judgment, including costs and sanctions, on December 12, 2014.

1   All references to "Rules" are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, unless otherwise stated.

Jauregui, on behalf of Lora and Palma, promptly filed a motion for reconsideration under Rule 60(b). That motion was denied on January 26, 2015, but the filing of the motion tolled the deadline for filing an appeal until thirty days after the order of denial was entered. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(v). Lora and Palma, through Jauregui, met that deadline, but then failed to prosecute the appeal, so we dismissed it on March 19, 2015.

On May 28, 2015, 140 days after the entry of final judgment, Jauregui filed a second motion for reconsideration, this time under Rule 59(e).2 He again asked the District Court to reconsider the personal sanctions against him. The Court [*3]  denied that motion and Jauregui filed this appeal on July 14, 2015, naming Lora and Palma as appellants, as well as himself. The defendants opposed Jauregui's motion for reconsideration as untimely and now likewise oppose this appeal.

2   Jauregui's motion is entitled "Plaintiffs' Counsel Motion for Reconsideration and Relief." (District Court Dkt. No. 123 at 1.) Although Jauregui does not make entirely clear what Rule he is invoking, he does refer to the legal standard for a motion pursuant to Rule 59. Furthermore, it has long been established that, "[f]or purposes of Rule 4(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, we view a motion characterized only as a motion for reconsideration as the 'functional equivalent' of a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend a judgment." Fed. Kemper Ins. Co. v. Rauscher, 807 F.2d 345, 348 (3d Cir. 1986) (citing Venen v. Sweet, 758 F.2d 117, 122 (3d Cir. 1985)). Therefore, we review Jauregui's motion for reconsideration as one made under Rule 59.

II. Discussion3

3   The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Because the time allowed for filing a Rule 59(e) motion is a claim-processing rather than jurisdictional rule, the District Court retained jurisdiction to decide Jauregui's motion for reconsideration. Wiest v. Lynch, 710 F.3d 121, 127 (3d Cir. 2013).

On appeal, there is "no question that we have both the power and the duty to consider the case to the extent necessary to resolve any jurisdictional issue." [*4]  Richman Bros. Records, Inc. v. U.S. Sprint Commc'ns Co., 953 F.2d 1431, 1438 (3d Cir. 1991), cert. denied 505 U.S. 1230 (1992).

Our jurisdiction is circumscribed by statute. Vineland Chem. Co. v. U.S. Envtl. Protection Agency, 810 F.2d 402, 405 (3d Cir. 1987). Before addressing the merits of any dispute, we must satisfy ourselves that we possess jurisdiction to hear the matter. Interdynamics, Inc. v. Firma Wolf, 698 F.2d 157, 164 (3d Cir. 1982). We cannot review arguments that should have been raised in a previous direct appeal but which the party chose not to pursue. United States v. Pultrone, 241 F.3d 306, 307-08 (3d Cir. 2001). Lora and Palma's claims were fully resolved when this Court dismissed their appeal on March 19, 2015. Consequently, their second attempt to appeal the District Court's dismissal of their case under Rule 37(b), and the related imposition of costs and sanctions, is not cognizable. There is no jurisdiction for an attempt at a do-over.

Because Jauregui also appeals the District Court's July 7, 2015 denial of his second motion to reconsider personal sanctions, which was not raised on the first appeal (and, indeed, could not have been because the motion had not yet been filed, let alone ruled on), we separately consider our jurisdiction as to that aspect of the appeal. Jauregui's second motion for reconsideration relied on Rule 59(e), which provides parties a 28-day window following the entry of judgment to seek an amendment or alteration of the judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Jauregui waited 140 days after judgment was [*5]  entered before he filed his 59(e) motion, obviously outside the 28-day window.

The question of whether a notice of appeal was timely is a question of law over which we exercise plenary review. DL Res., Inc. v. FirstEnergy Sols. Corp., 506 F.3d 209, 213 (3d Cir. 2007). For an appeal to be timely, it must be filed within the time specified by the appropriate section of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4. For civil matters, aside from certain exceptions not applicable here, the notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). The time to file the notice of appeal is tolled when a timely Rule 59(e) motion is pending in the district court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(iv). But "an untimely Rule 59(e) motion, even one that was not objected to in the district court, does not toll the time to file a notice of appeal under Rule 4(a)(4)(A)." Lizardo v. United States, 619 F.3d 273, 280 (3d Cir. 2010).

Jauregui's time to appeal the District Court's imposition of personal sanctions ran from the date of entry of final judgment as tolled by the first and timely motion for reconsideration, which Lora, Palma, and Jauregui filed pursuant to Rule 60(b). That first motion for reconsideration was denied on January 26, 2015. Jauregui thus had until February 25, 2015 to file his appeal. But he did not, nor did he file his Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration within that window. The time to file his appeal had therefore already [*6]  expired before he filed that second motion for reconsideration. As a result, the untimely motion had no tolling effect on his time for filing an appeal. The deadline for Jauregui's appeal had long expired before the notice of appeal was filed on July 14, 2015.

In short, "[b]ecause [Jauregui]'s untimely Rule 59(e) motion did not toll the time to file a notice of appeal, his notice of appeal was untimely and we must dismiss his appeal for lack of jurisdiction." Id. at 280.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, we will dismiss the appeal.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

(1) FRAP 38 Sanctions Inapt for Appeal That Is Weak — “Borderline Frivolous” — Test Is Whether Appellant Should Have Known the Appeal Had Absolutely No Chance of Success — (2) Lay Opinion Testimony under Rule 701: Nub of Helpfulness Requirement Is to Exclude Testimony When the Witness Is No Better Suited Than the Jury to Assess the Issue; (3) Appeals: No Appeal from Denial of Motion for Judgment As a Matter of Law Unless Appellant Made That Motion Before Case Was Submitted to Jury

(1) § 1927 and Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct After Obtaining Verdict: Filing Lis Pendens Based on False Statements and in Violation of Governing Law, Filing Fraudulent Abstracts of Judgment That Represented They Had Been Court-Issued; (2) Rule 37 Sanctions for Baseless Motion to Compel Required Unless Target Shows That the Motion Was Substantially Justified Or Other Circumstances Make An Award Of Expenses Unjust

Rule 37 Dismissal Factors (10th Circuit) — Rule 37(d) Sanctions Apply Without Regard to Whether the Court Has Ordered the Delinquent Party to Appear for His, Her or Their Deposition

Rule 37 Dismissal Factors (Sixth Circuit) — Refusal to Answer Deposition Questions on Relevancy Grounds Is Not Valid Rule 30(c)(2) — Pro Se Deponent’s Attendance At Zoom Deposition While Driving A Semi, Refusing to Answer Questions, Inter Alia, Held Contumacious

Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures and Rule 37 Preclusion: Rule 26 Does Not Require Disclosure of Legal Theories Underlying Damages Computations Provided Pursuant to 26(a)(1)(A)(i)

Rule 37 Sanctions: (1) Forfeiture of Objections to Produce Specific Categories of Documents (Including Tax Returns, Social Media Passwords) as Sanction for Violation of Discovery Order — (2) Default Judgment for Multiple Violations of Discovery Orders — (3) Ninth Circuit’s 5-Factor Test for Dismissal or Default Sanction — (4) Three Additional Factors Considered by Court of Appeals in Assessing Whether Lesser Sanctions Were Adequately Considered — (5) District Court Need Not Recite Each Factor: It Suffices If Record Permits Appellate Court to Apply Them — (6) Public Policy Favoring Disposition of Cases on the Merits Is Not Dispositive Where At Least 4 Factors “Support,” Or 3 Factors “Strongly Support,” Dismissal/Default — (7) And Lends Little Support to A Party Whose Conduct Impedes Adjudication on the Merits — (7) Order to Show Cause Why FRAP 38, § 1927 and Inherent Power Sanctions Should Not Issue for Multiple Misstatements Of Counsel At Oral Argument

Electronic Spoliation Sanctions: “Intent to Deprive” in Rule 37(e)(2) Means Willful Destruction of Evidence to Avoid Its Discovery by an Adverse Party — Relevant Circumstantial Evidence in Determining “Intent to Deprive” — Rule 37(e)(2)(C)’s Standards Trump Circuit’s Multi-Factor Test for Determining Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate — No Prejudice Required for 37(e)(2) Sanctions Because Intent to Deprive Creates Inference the Loss of Information Favored the Spoliator

Sanctions and Appealability — Fifth Circuit’s 2023 Survey of Circuit Cases Concerning Whether Judgment of Dismissal As a Sanction Bars Review of Earlier Sanctions Orders Due to Lack of Jurisdiction or Whether The Decision to Review Pre-Dismissal Sanctions Orders Is Prudential

Sanctions and Appealability — Prior Sanctions Orders Do Not Merge into Judgment of Dismissal Imposed As Sanction under Rules 16(f), 37(b) and 41(b) and Are Unappealable — Courts of Appeal Differ As to Whether This Lack of Reviewability Is Jurisdictional or Discretionary (Jurisdictional in Second Circuit)

Sanctions Enforcement and Appealability: Failure to Pay Rule 37 Sanctions and Otherwise Comply with Discovery Orders Leads to Dismissal under Rule 41(b) — Second Circuit Factors for Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute or Comply with Court Orders — Belated, Partial Compliance with Orders Does Not Deprive District Court of Discretion to Dismiss Based on Continuing Non-Compliance with Other Aspects of Orders — “Hopelessly Belated Compliance” with Court Orders Not Accorded Great Weight — Prior Sanctions Orders Do Not Merge into Judgment of Dismissal under Rule 41(b) And Are Unreviewable

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice