In a bankruptcy appeal to district court, the appellant’s brief was due on November 4. It did not file; the appellee moved to dismiss a month later, and the appellant was denied leave to file late. The Fifth Circuit found no abuse of discretion in that decision, looking to the factors about leave for late filings identified in Salts v. Epps, 676 F.3d 468, 474 & n.13 (5th Cir. 2012). The Court noted: “In the order granting Tarbox’s motion to dismiss, the district court found: 1) ‘the delay of over one month has prejudiced Appellee’ in its state court suit against [Appellant]; 2) the ‘thirty-four day delay’ ‘is substantial, and could have been easily avoided through basic diligence’; 3) ‘Appellant’s failure to exercise diligence in filing and pursuing its appeal was the sole reason for the delay’; and 4) ‘“Appellant has not shown good cause to excuse the late filing.” Neurology & Neurophysiology Assocs., P.A. v. Tarbox, No. 15-50105 (Oct. 15, 2015, unpublished).
Recent Related Posts