Penrod Drilling Co. v. U.S.

• Decision Date: 07 February 1991
• Docket Number: No. 90-1414,90-1414
• Citation: 925 F.2d 406
• Parties: , 19 Fed.R.Serv.3d 173 PENROD DRILLING COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit

Page 406

925 F.2d 406

12 ITRD 2457, 19 Fed.R.Serv.3d 173

PENROD DRILLING COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 90-1414.

United States Court of Appeals Federal Circuit.

Feb. 7, 1991.

John W. McConnell, Jr., Haight, Gardner, Poor & Havens, Washington, D.C., argued for plaintiff-appellant.

Barbara M. Epstein, Commercial Litigation Branch, Dept. of Justice, New York City, argued for defendant-appellee. With her on the brief were Stuart M. Gerson, Asst. Atty. Gen., David M. Cohen, Director and Joseph I. Liebman, Atty. in Charge, International Trade Field Office.

Before MARKEY, Circuit Judge, FRIEDMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and NEWMAN, Circuit Judge.

FRIEDMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

The sole question in this appeal is whether the Court of International Trade improperly denied a motion retroactively to extend the time for appeal. We affirm.

I

On December 13, 1989, the Court of International Trade entered judgment dismissing four cases the appellant Penrod Drilling Company (Penrod) had filed to challenge certain rulings of the Customs Service. Under Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, made applicable to the Court of International Trade by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2645(c) (1988), Penrod's time for filing a notice of appeal from that judgment expired 60 days therefrom, on February 12, 1990. If, however, Penrod filed a timely motion to set aside the judgment and to grant rehearing, its time for appeal would run from the disposition of the motion. Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(4).

Rule 59(b) of the Rules of the Court of International Trade provides that a motion for a new trial or for rehearing "shall be served and filed" within 30 days of the entry of judgment. Such a motion by Penrod was therefore required to be served and filed by January 12, 1990.

Rule 5(g) of the Rules of the Court of International Trade provides that service of a pleading or paper by mail

is completed when received, except that a pleading or other paper mailed by registered or certified mail properly addressed to the party to be served ... with the proper postage affixed and return receipt requested, shall be deemed served ... as of the date of mailing.

In Belfont Sales Corp. v. United States, 698 F.Supp. 916 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1988), aff'd on other grounds, 878 F.2d 1413 (Fed.Cir.1989), the court held that unless a motion for rehearing is received by the opposing party within thirty days of judgment when service is made by ordinary mail, the court lacks jurisdiction. 698 F.Supp. at 919. The court noted that, unlike the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which state that "[s]ervice by mail is complete upon mailing," the rule in the Court of International Trade is that service by mail is not complete until receipt by the party to be served, unless certified or registered mail is used. Id.

On January 11, 1990, Penrod filed with the Court of International Trade a motion to set aside the December 13, 1989 judgment and to grant rehearing (motion to rehear). Penrod served the motion on the government by mailing a copy thereof through ordinary mail on January 10, 1990, from Washington, D.C., to government counsel in New York City. Government counsel did not receive the motion, and first learned of it on March 2, 1990. Since Penrod's motion was not timely served, its filing was not timely and therefore did not extend Penrod's time for appeal.

On March 12, 1990, Penrod filed a motion to extend the time for appeal (which had expired on February 12, 1990) until ten days after the motion was granted. It acted pursuant to Rule 4(a)(5) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, which permits a district court, "upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause," to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal. Penrod stated that its failure to file a timely notice of appeal was due to excusable neglect or good cause, based on an affidavit by its counsel that since "the copy of plaintiff's motion mailed to defendant's attorney was contained in an envelope which had the return address of this firm on it, the mailed notice has not been returned to plaintiff's attorney. Therefore, plaintiff's attorney had no knowledge that the copy of the motion had not been received by defendant's attorney until the call from her on March 2, 1990."

The Court of International Trade denied both the motion to rehear and the motion to extend the time for appeal. The court first held that it lacked jurisdiction over the motion to rehear because the government "was not served within thirty days of judgment, as required by the Rules of this Court." Penrod Drilling Co. v. United States, 740 F.Supp. 858, 860 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1990).

In declining to extend the time for appeal, the court found that

two days is not sufficient time for mail sent by ordinary mail from Washington, D.C. to arrive in New York City. When plaintiff used ordinary mail, it ran a very substantial risk, indeed it was a virtual certainty that the notice would not arrive in time. Such a foreseeable result cannot be labeled either excusable neglect or good cause.

Id. at 861.

The court rejected Penrod's attempted distinction "between slow mail delivery and no mail delivery, claiming that the fact that the papers apparently were neither delivered to defendant nor returned to plaintiff is evidence of postal negligence for which plaintiff is not responsible" (emphasis in original). It stated:

The distinction is not a valid one since even a relatively short and more foreseeable delay in delivery would have produced the same result, namely plaintiff's failure to serve defendant within the statutory time limit.

Plaintiff had a responsibility to know that papers sent by ordinary mail are not deemed served until received, and thus should have allowed more...