Contractor’s counsel relied on the wrong rule when calculating the time to file a notice of appeal from the COFC. The contractor sought to extend the time for filing an appeal, arguing excusable neglect. But the Federal Circuit was not in a forgiving mood. Misreading the rules does not amount to excusable neglect.
United Communications, LLC v. United States, Fed. Cir., 2022-2074
- COFC Proceedings – The contractor submitted a claim to the agency. The agency denied the claim. The contractor sued the agency for breach. The COFC dismissed for failure to state a claim
- Untimely Appeal – The contractor filed a notice of appeal. But the notice was untimely. The contractor admitted that instead of relying on the rules of Federal Appellate Procedure that govern appeals from a court, its counsel had relied on the statute governing appeals to the Federal Circuit from the boards of contract appeals.
- Motion for Extension – The contractor moved to extend the deadline for filing its appeal. The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure allow a district court to extend the notice of appeal deadline where the moving party shows excusable neglect. The district denied the motion. The contractor appealed to the Federal Circuit.
- Federal Circuit Affirms – The Federal Circuit held the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to extend. No unusual circumstances contributed to the delay. This was nothing more than a garden-variety miscalculation. Misreading of the rules governing appeals does not amount to excusable neglect.
The contractor is represented by G. Scott Walters and Sarah Carpenter of Smith, Currie & Hancock LLP. The government is represented by Ebonie I. Branch, Brian M. Boynton, Deborah Ann Bynum, and Patricia M. McCarthy of the Department of Justice.
--Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor