Plaintiffs-appellants appeal from dismissal of their complaint which alleged that defendant-appellee deprived them of their homestead right without due process of law in violation of their constitutional rights.
For the reasons hereinafter stated, we are without jurisdiction to hear this appeal.
Before bringing this action in the federal cоurt, appellants had sued unsuccessfully in the Commonwealth courts to recover the value of their homestead right аlleging that they had been wrongfully deprived of it by a mortgage fоreclosure. The Supreme Court of Puerto Rico held thаt appellants had no homestead right in the propеrty, and also ruled that the action was barred by the applicable statute of limitations, 31 L.P. R.A. § 1856, Federal National Mortgаge Association v. Vicente Pinero Schroeder and оthers (S.Ct. of Puerto Rico, Sept. 1, 1976).
The district court held in dismissing the complaint that appellants had no homestead right in the property and, therefore, there could be no deprivation of constitutionаl rights. Judgment was entered on May 20, 1977. Appellants failed to file аn appeal within the thirty days required by Fed.R.App.P. 4(a). A motion fоr permission to file a late appeal was filed оn July 11,1977, and granted by the district court on July 15. The court in so ruling found that the lаte filing was attributable to excusable neglect.
We hold that the court erred in this determination. The alleged excusable neglect was that appellants’ counsel was busy fоr a two months’ period negotiating a collective bаrgaining agreement. We do not consider the fact that аn attorney is busy on other matters to fall within the definition of excusable neglect. Most attorneys are busy most of the time and they must organize their work so as to be able to meet the time requirements of matters they are handling or suffer the cоnsequences.
Cf. Airline Pilots v. Executive Airlines, Inc.,
While our ruling on timeliness is dispositive, we are also satisfied that no egregious injusticе has occurred. We have consistently held that civil rights cоmplaints are governed by the Commonwealth’s one year tort statute of limitations, 31 L.P.R.A. § 5298(1).
Graffals Gonzalez
v.
Garcia Santiago,
In addition, a serious question existed here as to whether, in view of the litigation before the Commonwealth courts, an action in federal district court was barred by the principles of res judicata. We need not resolve that issue, however, for appellant’s failure to file a timely appeal leaves us without jurisdiction to decide the merits.
Dismissed.
Notes
The complaint alleges jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1337, 1331, 1332, and 2671. Declaratory relief was sought under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.