Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
This case arises from an August 18, 2026 order in which the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted Defendants City of Oroville, Patrick Piatt, and Richard Stanford's motion to dismiss and dismissed Plaintiff BAM Properties LLC's First Amended Complaint without leave to amend. Judgment was entered the same day. Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A), Plaintiff had 30 days—until September 17, 2026—to file a notice of appeal.
Plaintiff's counsel, Christopher J. Moenig, declared that he reviewed the Court's August 18 order on August 25, 2026, and confirmed with his client on September 3, 2026 that Plaintiff intended to appeal. However, counsel inadvertently calendared the deadline to file the notice of appeal as September 28, 2026, rather than the correct September 17 deadline. Counsel discovered the mistake on September 24, 2026, while preparing the notice of appeal. Plaintiff filed both the notice of appeal and a motion for an eight-day extension of time on September 25, 2026. Defendants opposed the motion on October 9, 2026, and Plaintiff replied on October 14, 2026. Meanwhile, the Ninth Circuit administratively closed the appellate case until December 18, 2026, pending resolution of the motion before the district court.
The Court’s Holding
The Court granted Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time under Rule 4(a)(5), which permits a district court to extend the time to file a notice of appeal upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause. Applying the four-factor equitable test from Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership, the Court examined: (1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on the proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith.
The Court found that Plaintiff adequately demonstrated excusable neglect. First, the prejudice to Defendants from an eight-day delay was minimal, and the loss of 'a quick but unmerited victory' is not considered prejudicial. Second, the length of the delay—little over one week—was minimal, particularly where the Ninth Circuit had already stayed the appeal until December 18, 2026. Third, the parties did not dispute that Plaintiff and counsel acted in good faith. Finally, although Plaintiff's reason for the delay—an inadvertent calendaring error—was not strong, the Court noted that courts in the Ninth Circuit have found excusable neglect even when delays resulted from negligent calendaring mistakes. The Court also considered additional equitable factors, including counsel's diligence in filing the notice of appeal the day after discovering the error and counsel's personal medical issues during the relevant period.
The Court concluded that the Pioneer factors and the equity of the circumstances balanced in favor of permitting Plaintiff to file its notice of appeal eight days late. The Court therefore granted the motion and accepted as timely Plaintiff's notice of appeal filed on September 25, 2026.
Key Takeaways
- A district court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal under Rule 4(a)(5) upon a showing of excusable neglect, even when the delay results from counsel's inadvertent calendaring error.
- The four-factor Pioneer test for excusable neglect examines prejudice to the opposing party, the length of delay and its impact, the reason for the delay, and whether the movant acted in good faith.
- An eight-day delay in filing a notice of appeal may be excused where the delay causes minimal prejudice, the movant acted in good faith, and counsel promptly addressed the error upon discovery.
- Courts may consider additional equitable factors, such as counsel's diligence after discovering the error and personal circumstances affecting counsel during the relevant period.
- The loss of 'a quick but unmerited victory' is not considered prejudicial for purposes of the excusable neglect analysis.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates the application of the Pioneer excusable neglect standard in the context of late-filed notices of appeal. It reaffirms that inadvertent calendaring errors, while not strong excuses, may nonetheless constitute excusable neglect when the other Pioneer factors weigh in favor of granting relief. The decision also highlights the importance of prompt action upon discovering a calendaring mistake and the relevance of equitable considerations, such as counsel's diligence and personal circumstances, in the excusable neglect analysis.