[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-16508 AUGUST 17, 2010
Non-Argument Calendar JOHN LEY
________________________ CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 06-22315-CV-FAM
GLOBAL HORIZONS INCORPORATED,
a California Corporation,
Plaintiff-Counter
Defendant-Appellant,
versus
DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE, N.A., INC.,
a Florida Corporation a.k.a.
Country Best Inc., d.b.a.
Del Monte Fresh Produce Company,
Defendant-Counter
Claimant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(August 17, 2010)
Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff Global Horizons appeals the district court’s denial of Plaintiff’s
Motion to Extend Time to File Notice of Appeal, arguing that the district court
should have granted the motion based on “excusable neglect” under Federal Rule
of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5). We review the district court’s decision for an
abuse of discretion. Advanced Estimating Sys., Inc. v. Riney, 130 F.3d 996, 977
(11th Cir. 1997).
A party in a civil case must file a notice of appeal “within 30 days after the
judgment or order appealed from is entered” to invoke the jurisdiction of the
appellate court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A); United States v. Grant, 256 F.3d
1146, 1150 (11th Cir. 2001). “The timely filing of a notice of appeal is a
mandatory prerequisite to the exercise of appellate jurisdiction.” Grant, 256 F.3d
at 1150 (quotation omitted). Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5)(A)(ii),
however, allows a district court, in its discretion, to extend the time to appeal if the
party establishes “excusable neglect or good cause” to justify the late filing.
In the context of a bankruptcy proceeding, the Supreme Court set forth
several factors courts should take into account to determine whether a party’s
neglect of a deadline is excusable under the Bankruptcy Code. Pioneer Inv. Servs.
Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 113 S. Ct. 1489. We have
determined that these factors are also applicable in the Rule 4(a)(5) context; thus
2
we have held that, in determining whether a party has demonstrated excusable
neglect, courts should “‘tak[e] account of all relevant circumstances surrounding
the party’s omission,’ including ‘the danger of prejudice to the [nonmovant], the
length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, the reason for
the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant,
and whether the movant acted in good faith.’” Advanced Estimating Sys. v. Riney,
77 F.3d 1322, 1325 (11th Cir. 1996) (quoting Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 395, 113 S. Ct.
at 1498).
Here, the district court recited the Pioneer standard for excusable neglect
and determined that “all the Pioneer factors balanced together weigh in
Defendant’s favor.” Specifically, the court determined that miscalendaring a
deadline was within the reasonable control of the Plaintiff, and that the
“cumulative effect” of the Plaintiff’s missed deadlines exhibited an absence of
good faith. Reviewing the decision by the district court for abuse of discretion,
Advanced Estimating Sys., 130 F.3d at 997, we discern no reversible error in the
district court’s decision to refuse to extend the time for the Plaintiff to appeal.1
Upon careful consideration of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm.
1
Because we lack jurisdiction over this appeal absent a timely notice of appeal,
Grant, 256 F.3d at 1150, we do not reach the additional issues raised by Appellant in the initial
brief.
3
AFFIRMED.2
2
Appellant’s request for oral argument is DENIED.
4