Joseph v. Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corp.
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 13640
| 3rd Cir. | 2011Background
- HOVIC seeks a 30-day extension under LAR 112.4(a) to file a petition for writ of certiorari from the Virgin Islands Supreme Court's March 8, 2011 decision.
- The Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands reversed a Superior Court grant of summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings; settlement discussions followed.
- HOVIC argues mootness after the parties purportedly settled, contending the March 8 decision may be jurisdictionally void if moot; the Supreme Court denied recall of mandate and rehearing requests.
- The Third Circuit has jurisdiction to review final Virgin Islands Supreme Court decisions within 60 days under 48 U.S.C. § 1613; HOVIC’s deadline ran May 9, 2011, with extension requested May 3, 2011.
- Local Rule 112.4(a) permits extensions up to 30 days for ‘good cause’; the opinion explains no precedential standard had previously defined ‘good cause’ in this context.
- The court ultimately grants a 30-day extension, docketing the petition for filing on June 8, 2011, while clarifying that HOVIC did not establish good cause under LAR 112.4(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What standard constitutes good cause under LAR 112.4(a)? | HOVIC argues good cause exists due to new counsel and scheduling commitments. | Joseph does not oppose; the standard should require events beyond control of counsel. | Good cause requires a factor beyond counsel's control; not satisfied here. |
| Did HOVIC demonstrate good cause for an extension under LAR 112.4(a)? | New appellate counsel and recent engagement justify more time. | No unforeseen event; busy schedule and prior planning negate good cause. | HOVIC did not show good cause; extension nonetheless granted for 30 days. |
| Should the court apply Supreme Court Rule 13(5) or Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A) analogies to interpret good cause? | SCOT Rule 13(5) guidance supports the approach to good cause. | Use analogous framework to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A) to distinguish good cause from excusable neglect. | Guidance drawn from Supreme Court Rule 13(5) and Rule 4(a)(5) informs good-cause standard; not dispositive, but persuasive. |
| Does mootness settlement affect this court's jurisdiction to review the Virgin Islands decision? | Mootness could deprive jurisdiction; petition should be timely to preserve review. | Assume finality for jurisdiction in this decision; mootness question remains for merits. | For purposes of this extension decision, the March 8 decision is assumed final and reviewable, pending later developments. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mississippi v. Turner, 498 U.S. 1306 (U.S. 1991) (overextended caseload is not good cause unless unforeseen and uncontrollable)
- Madden v. Texas, 498 U.S. 1305 (U.S. 1991) (extending time requires more than busy schedules or routine tasks)
- Penry v. Texas, 515 U.S. 1304 (U.S. 1995) (voluminous record or broad errors do not automatically justify extension)
- Kleem v. INS, 479 U.S. 1308 (U.S. 1986) (late extension requires more than desire for additional time to research)
- Carter v. United States, 75 S. Ct. 911 (U.S. 1955) (illustrates early balancing of counsel workload and extension requests)
- Shingara v. Skiles, 420 F.3d 301 (3d Cir. 2005) (good cause depends on concrete, not speculative, harm)