Glenford Ragguette v. Premier Wines & Spirits, 57 V.I. 886

Ragguette sued Premier Wines & Spirits for employment discrimination; represented by Lee J. Rohn.
District Court granted Premier summary judgment on January 5, 2010; Ragguette did not file a timely notice of appeal under Rule 4(a)(1).
Ragguette moved for extension under Rule 4(a)(5) arguing excusable neglect due to counsel’s failure to issue a timely notice.
District Court denied the Rule 4(a)(5) motion on May 14, 2010; Ragguette filed a notice of appeal on May 20, 2010.
We previously vacated and remanded to apply the Pioneer four-factor test for excusable neglect to determine whether the extension was proper.
The Third Circuit now holds the District Court abused its discretion and dismisses Ragguette’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Ragguette’s delay was excusable neglect under Rule 4(a)(5).	Ragguette argues counsel’s misstep was excusable.	Premier contends neglect was not excusable given counsel’s duties.	Yes; the district court abused its discretion; neglect was not excusable.
Whether counsel’s mismanagement constitutes excusable neglect under Pioneer factors.	Rohn’s errors were minor and in good faith.	The errors show lack of diligence and foreseeability.	No; Pioneer factors weigh against excusable neglect.
Whether the district court properly weighed the Pioneer factors given the record.	District Court properly weighed factors.	District Court erred in balancing factors.	District court abused discretion; factors favor lack of excusable neglect.
Whether Ragguette’s appeal is jurisdictionally defective due to late notice of appeal.	Rule 4(a)(5) extension salvages jurisdiction.	No jurisdiction because extension was improper.	Appeal dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
Whether the tribunal should consider the e-mail chain and attorney conduct in ruling.	E-mails show intent to appeal.	Not probative of excusable neglect.	We do not resolve evidentiary challenges; holding remains that neglect wasn’t excusable.

Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380 (1993) (establishes equitable four-factor test for excusable neglect)
Consolidated Freightways Corp. of Del. v. Larson, 827 F.2d 916 (3d Cir. 1987) (non-exhaustive factors guiding excusable neglect under Rule 4(a)(5))
In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 401 F.3d 143 (3d Cir. 2005) (requires Pioneer balancing; overview of excusable neglect standard)
Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007) (jurisdictional nature of timely notice of appeal)
Consolidated Freightways Corp. of Del. v. Larson, 827 F.2d 916 (3d Cir. 1987) (non-exhaustive factors guiding excusable neglect under Rule 4(a)(5))