DITECH FINANCIAL LLC LLC v. Dutch Oven Court Trust, Defendant-counter-claimant-Appellant. (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-04-30No. No. 20-15066

Summary · law.co

Holding. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Dutch Oven failed to file a timely, valid notice of appeal complying with Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 3(c) and 4(a).

Dutch Oven Court Trust appealed a district court decision granting summary judgment to Ditech Financial LLC and Fannie Mae in a quiet-title action. However, Dutch Oven's initial notice of appeal, filed on the deadline date, contained multiple substantive errors—it identified the wrong parties, wrong defendants, wrong case number, wrong judgment, and wrong judgment date. The court determined these defects were not mere technical irregularities but rather constituted a failure to properly appeal.

When Dutch Oven attempted to file an amended notice of appeal to correct these errors, it did so one day late, on January 14, 2020, after the 30-day filing deadline had already passed on January 13, 2020. Since Dutch Oven did not request an extension of time before the deadline expired, the amended notice could not cure the jurisdictional defect. The appellate court therefore lacked authority to hear the appeal.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether defects in a notice of appeal can be treated as technical or excusable errors
Whether an amended notice of appeal filed after the deadline can cure jurisdictional defects
Timeliness of notice of appeal filing requirements

Procedural posture

Dutch Oven appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Ditech Financial and Fannie Mae in their quiet-title action.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM ***

Defendant-Appellant Dutch Oven Court Trust (“Dutch Oven”) attempts to appeal the district courts grant of summary judgment to Plaintiffs-Appellees Ditech Financial LLC and Fannie Mae in their quiet-title action. However, because Dutch Oven failed to timely file a valid notice of appeal with the district court, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal pursuant to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 3(c) and 4(a).

A valid notice of appeal must “specify the party or parties taking the appeal by naming each one in the caption or body of the notice” and “designate the judgment, order, or part thereof being appealed.” Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(A)–(B). “[T]he notice of appeal required by Rule 3 must be filed with the district clerk within 30 days after entry of the judgment or order appealed from.” Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). In this case, the district court entered judgment on December 13, 2019. The 30th day from entry of judgment was Sunday, January 12, 2020. By rule, the deadline extended to Monday, January 13, 2020. See Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(1)(C).

On January 13, 2020, Dutch Oven filed a putative notice of appeal that failed to comply with the content requirements of Rule 3(c). The putative notice listed the wrong plaintiffs, the wrong defendants, the wrong case number, the wrong judgment, and the wrong judgment date. While a “technical error in a notice of appeal does not deprive [this court] of jurisdiction,” we have reiterated the Supreme Courts admonition that “failure to name a party in a notice of appeal is more than excusable informality, but rather, ‘it constitutes a failure of that party to appeal.’ ” Le v. Astrue, 558 F.3d 1019, 1022–23 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted) (quoting Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 U.S. 312, 314, 108 S.Ct. 2405, 101 L.Ed.2d 285 (1988)). We decline Dutch Ovens invitation to treat these deficiencies as technical errors.

Dutch Oven contends that its amended notice of appeal cured any defects in the initial, defective notice of appeal. The amended notice, however, was filed on January 14, 2020 and was, therefore, untimely under Rule 4(a).

“[B]ecause the time constraints outlined in Rule 4(a) implement the limitations Congress imposed on this Court by statute, [this Court] must dismiss civil appeals that are untimely for lack of jurisdiction․” United States v. Sadler, 480 F.3d 932, 937 (9th Cir. 2007). Thus, we dismiss Dutch Ovens appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

DISMISSED.

FOOTNOTES

. Dutch Oven did not file a motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal as authorized by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5).

. Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 32, is denied as moot.