Pernell Evans v. Federal Express Corporation

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 16 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EDWARD ALVARADO; JOHN No. 08-16545 AZZAM; CHARLOTTE BOSWELL; TANDA BROWN; BERTHA DUENAS, D.C. No. 3:04-cv-00098-SI Plaintiffs, MEMORANDUM * CHARLES GIBBS; JANICE LEWIS; MARIA MUNOZ; KEVIN NEELY; LORE PAOGOFIE; DYRONN THEODORE; LASONIA WALKER; CHRISTOPHER WILKERSON, Plaintiffs, and PERNELL EVANS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, DBA Fedex Express, Defendant - Appellee. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Susan Illston, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted May 12, 2010 San Francisco, California Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Plaintiff Pernell Evans appeals the denial of his motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The district court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal if a party moves within 30 days after expiration of the appeal period and “shows excusable neglect or good cause.” Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A). In Lemoge v. United States, 587 F.3d 1188, 1192, 1194-96 (9th Cir. 2009), we held that a district court making an excusable neglect determination abused its discretion when it failed, inter alia, to consider each of the four explicit Pioneer factors as well as the prejudice the moving party would suffer if its motion was denied. Because we decided Lemoge after the district court’s decision in this case, we vacate and remand to allow that court to reconsider in light of Lemoge. VACATED AND REMANDED. 2