Nestorovic v. Metro. Water Reclamation Dist. of Greater Chi., 926 F.3d 427

Background

Slobodanka Nestorovic sued the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District alleging sex and disability discrimination under Title VII and the ADA; the district court dismissed her complaint on May 16, 2018 for failure to comply with Title VII filing requirements.
The 30-day statutory deadline to file a notice of appeal expired on June 15, 2018; Nestorovic did not file a timely notice.
On July 13, within the 30-day grace period for motions under 28 U.S.C. § 2107(c), Nestorovic moved for an extension to file an appeal, stating she was searching for counsel who needed time to review the file.
The district court granted the extension and treated her motion as a notice of appeal, but made no explicit findings addressing § 2107(c)’s required showing of excusable neglect or good cause.
The Water Reclamation District initially briefed the merits and agreed the appeal was timely, but later amended its jurisdictional statement to argue Nestorovic had not shown excusable neglect or good cause.
The Seventh Circuit held the § 2107(c) showing is jurisdictional, found no record evidence or district-court findings of excusable neglect or good cause, and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the § 2107(c) requirement to show excusable neglect or good cause for a post-deadline extension is jurisdictional	Nestorovic argued the district court granted an extension and thus the appeal is timely	District argued Nestorovic failed to show excusable neglect or good cause and so the extension was invalid	The requirement in § 2107(c) is jurisdictional; lack of the required showing deprives the court of jurisdiction
Whether the district court’s grant of an extension was proper on the record	Nestorovic relied on her proffer that she was seeking counsel who needed time to review the case	District argued the record lacks evidence justifying an extension	The district court abused its discretion or at least made no lawful finding: no evidence or findings support excusable neglect or good cause
Whether the jurisdictional defect was waived by the District's initial briefing on the merits	Nestorovic asserted the extension made the appeal timely so no jurisdictional defect exists	District later raised the jurisdictional argument	The jurisdictional requirement cannot be waived or forfeited and may be raised at any time
Whether remand for findings was appropriate versus dismissal	Nestorovic implicitly favored allowing the appeal to proceed or remand for explanation	District favored dismissal given lack of statutory showing	Dismissal is appropriate where absence of any excuse is total; remand unnecessary here because record contains no basis for an extension

Key Cases Cited

Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (statutory appeal deadlines are jurisdictional)
Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Servs. of Chi., 138 S. Ct. 13 (distinguishing statutory jurisdictional time limits from rule-based claim-processing limits)
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83 (interpretation of "jurisdiction" and its limits)
Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428 (statutory time limits can have drastic jurisdictional consequences)
Satkar Hosp. v. Fox Television Holdings, 767 F.3d 701 (requirements for excusable neglect in Rule 4 context)
Sherman v. Quinn, 668 F.3d 421 (denying extension when absence of excuse is total)
United States v. Guy, 140 F.3d 735 (standard for abuse of discretion in extension contexts)
United States v. Cates, 716 F.3d 445 (new counsel needing time does not automatically establish excusable neglect)
Robinson v. Sweeny, 794 F.3d 782 (pro se litigants’ notices of appeal require very little)
James v. Eli, 889 F.3d 320 (abuse-of-discretion standard review)