David S. Yang v. Bullock Financial Group, Inc.
435 F. App'x 842
11th Cir.2011Background
- Yang appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to extend time to file a notice of appeal after summary judgment for Bullock Financial Group.
- The notice of appeal was untimely under Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1)(A).
- Rule 4(a)(5) allows extension for excusable neglect or good cause, which Yang sought to prove.
- The district court rejected the extension request, determining no excusable neglect.
- We vacate and remand to apply the correct Pioneer four-factor test and assess the delay with proper findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court applied the proper standard. | Yang argues the court failed to apply Pioneer factors. | Bullock contends proper standard was applied and findings were adequate. | Abuse of discretion; remand to correctly apply Pioneer factors. |
| Whether the Pioneer factors support excusable neglect. | Yang asserts delay resulted from inadvertence/carelessness with no prejudice. | Bullock asserts delay harmed proceedings and prejudiced defendant. | Remand to make specific findings on reason for delay and prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380 (Supreme Court, 1993) (four-factor equitable test for excusable neglect)
- Riney v. Advanced Estimating Systems, Inc., 77 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 1996) (applies Pioneer to appeals-extension context; emphasizes prejudicial impact)
- Cheney v. Anchor Glass Container Corp., 71 F.3d 848 (11th Cir. 1996) (untimely demand not prejudicial; short delay may be excusable)
- Heffner v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Alabama, Inc., 443 F.3d 1330 (11th Cir. 2006) (abuse-of-discretion standard and proper application of legal standards)