Case highlights importance of timely post-trial motions

An adverse decision in federal district court is disappointing, but it does not necessarily mean that all is lost - there are several options for seeking further review in both the district court and the federal Courts of Appeals. But a disappointed party interested in pursuing these options must act quickly. As a recent 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision emphasizes, the deadlines for seeking further review are short, and missing them can cut off any chance of relief.

Following an adverse jury verdict or decision by the court in a nonjury trial, the first option to consider is a post-trial motion in the district court. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorize several types of these motions, including:

Judgment as a Matter of Law. If the evidence in a jury trial was legally insufficient to support the jury's verdict, the losing party may file a post-judgment motion for judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b). The motion must be filed within 28 days of the entry of judgment. Id. There is a prerequisite to this avenue for relief, though: The moving party must also have moved for judgment as a matter of law before the case was submitted to the jury. Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a).

New trial. A party can seek a new trial on some or all issues, or can seek to alter or amend the judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59. Like a post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law, these motions must be filed within 28 days of the entry of judgment. Id.

Relief from judgment. A party can seek relief from a final judgment on several grounds, including "mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect," newly discovered evidence, fraud, the fact that a judgment is void, or "any other reason that justifies relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A motion for this relief must be made within a "reasonable time" after the entry of judgment, with an outer limit of one year where the motion is based on mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, or fraud. Id.

An aggrieved party can also turn to the appellate court for help. For cases tried in federal district courts in California, that means appealing to the 9th Circuit or, for a patent case, to the Federal Circuit.

A notice of appeal generally must be filed in the district court within 30 days of the entry of the appealed order or judgment (or within 60 days if the U.S. is a party). Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The district court can extend this time by up to 30 days from the original deadline or 14 days from when it grants the extension, whichever is later. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5). This aspect of federal practice differs significantly from California state court practice: In the state court system, no court can extend the time to file a notice of appeal unless there is a public emergency. Cal. Rule of Court 8.104(b).

Calculating the federal deadline for filing a notice of appeal gets more complicated when there are post-trial motions involved. If any party files a timely motion for a new trial or a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law in the district court, the time for all parties to appeal from the underlying judgment starts to run only from "the entry of the order disposing of the last such remaining motion." Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4). The window for appealing is similarly tolled if any party files a Rule 60 motion for relief from judgment within 28 days after judgment is entered. Id.

The 9th Circuit's recent decision in Classic Concepts, Ltd. v. Linen Source, Inc., 2013 DJDAR 6865 (9th Cir. May 30, 2013) illustrates the importance of meeting these appellate deadlines. In a nutshell, fail to timely appeal, and your appeal will be dismissed.

Classic Concepts was a copyright infringement case. A jury found that defendants' products infringed on Classic's copyright and awarded $16,321 in damages. The parties then briefed the issue of whether injunctive relief was warranted. On Sept. 28, 2007, the district court entered a judgment that awarded damages against defendants but did not mention an injunction.

Defendants filed timely motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial. The court denied those motions on Oct. 30, 2007. Three weeks later, on Nov. 20, 2007, Classic - which had been awarded damages but not an injunction - filed a nonstatutory "Motion for a Permanent Injunction." The district court denied the motion on Dec. 4, 2007, noting that it had already considered the issue before entering judgment.

Classic appealed from the denial of its injunction motion and from the judgment. It filed its notice of appeal on Dec. 13, 2007, just over a week after its motion was denied. The parties filed their appellate briefs in 2012, more than four years later. Then, in March 2013, the 9th Circuit ordered supplemental briefing on whether Classic's 2007 notice of appeal was timely. The answer turned out to be no.

The 9th Circuit acknowledged that under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a), defendants' motions for judgment as a matter of law and a new trial extended the time for Classic to appeal from the underlying judgment. But the post-trial motions only extended the time to appeal until 30 days from the day they were denied, i.e., to Nov. 29, 2007. Classic missed that deadline by two weeks, and it did not ask the district court for an extension. The appeal therefore was late.

The 9th Circuit held that Classic's post-judgment motion for an injunction did not change the analysis. The district court construed that motion as a Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration of its damages-only judgment. Although the motion may have been timely under Rule 60, the appellate rules provide that a Rule 60 motion does not extend the time to appeal unless it is filed within 28 days after entry of judgment (or, under the version in effect when Classic appealed in 2007, within 10 days after entry of judgment). Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(vi). Classic's post-judgment motion was not filed within that window, so had no effect on the time to appeal.

Because the appeal was late and the appellate deadlines are jurisdictional, the 9th Circuit dismissed the fully-briefed appeal without reaching the merits. In so ruling, the panel noted that it was unfortunate that the parties "failed to examine the timeliness of this appeal" on their own, leading to "the needless expenditure of client and court resources."

Classic Concepts is an important cautionary tale for any attorney involved in an appeal. If you represent a prospective appellant, it is critical to file the notice of appeal on time. Conversely, if you represent an appellee, check carefully to determine whether the appeal is timely. If it isn't, a motion to dismiss the appeal before it is briefed can lead to a quick victory for your client, and save everyone involved a lot of time and money.