Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

attorneystatuteappealpartnershipstatute of limitationsgood faith
attorneystatuteappealpartnershipstatute of limitationsgood faith

Related Cases

Barr v. Resolution Trust Corp. ex rel. Sunbelt Federal Sav., 837 S.W.2d 627
View Case »
Kothe v. Smith, 771 F.2d 667, 2 Fed.R.Serv.3d 864
View Case »
Camasta v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc., 761 F.3d 732
View Case »
United States v. Lewis, 147 A.3d 236
View Case »
Surowitz v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 383 U.S. 363, 86 S.Ct. 845, 15 L.Ed.2d 807, 10 Fed.R.Serv.2d 678
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Pincay v. Andrews, 389 F.3d 853, RICO Bus.Disp.Guide 10,778, 04 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10,158, 2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 13,838

Facts

The underlying dispute began in 1989 when Laffit Pincay, Jr. and Christopher McCarron sued Vincent S. Andrews and others for financial injuries stemming from alleged RICO and California law violations. A jury ruled in favor of Pincay in 1992, but the RICO claim was later reversed on appeal due to a statute of limitations issue. After electing to pursue the California law claim, Pincay won a judgment in 2002. Andrews's attorney misread the appeal deadline, believing it was 60 days instead of 30, leading to a late notice of appeal. The district court found the attorney's neglect excusable and granted an extension.

The underlying dispute began in 1989 when Laffit Pincay, Jr. and Christopher McCarron sued Vincent S. Andrews and others for financial injuries stemming from alleged RICO and California law violations. A jury ruled in favor of Pincay in 1992, but the RICO claim was later reversed on appeal due to a statute of limitations issue.

Issue

Did the district court abuse its discretion in granting an extension of time to file a notice of appeal based on a finding of excusable neglect?

Did the district court abuse its discretion in granting an extension of time to file a notice of appeal based on a finding of excusable neglect?

Rule

The court applied the four-part test for excusable neglect established in Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership, which considers: (1) the danger of prejudice to the non-moving party, (2) the length of delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, (3) the reason for the delay, and (4) whether the moving party's conduct was in good faith.

The court applied the four-part test for excusable neglect established in Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership, which considers: (1) the danger of prejudice to the non-moving party, (2) the length of delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, (3) the reason for the delay, and (4) whether the moving party's conduct was in good faith.

Analysis

The court analyzed the Pioneer factors and found that there was no prejudice to Pincay, the delay was minimal, and the reason for the delay was carelessness. The district court concluded that the attorney's carelessness did not render the neglect inexcusable, as the attorney had a generally reliable calendaring system that failed in this instance. The court emphasized that the determination of excusable neglect should be made within the context of the particular case.

The court analyzed the Pioneer factors and found that there was no prejudice to Pincay, the delay was minimal, and the reason for the delay was carelessness. The district court concluded that the attorney's carelessness did not render the neglect inexcusable, as the attorney had a generally reliable calendaring system that failed in this instance.

Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, holding that it did not abuse its discretion in granting the extension for filing the notice of appeal.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, holding that it did not abuse its discretion in granting the extension for filing the notice of appeal.

Who won?

Investors prevailed in the case because the court upheld the district court's finding of excusable neglect, allowing their appeal to proceed despite the late filing.

Investors prevailed in the case because the court upheld the district court's finding of excusable neglect, allowing their appeal to proceed despite the late filing.

You must be