Lim v. Courtcall Inc.

Dist. Ct. properly denied as untimely plaintiff’s motion under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6) to reopen time to file appeal of Dist. Ct.’s dismissal of plaintiff’s cause of action under circumstances where plaintiff filed said motion approximately 90 days after entry of dismissal order. Ct. of Appeals rejected plaintiff’s argument that said motion was timely since: (1) he was out of country when dismissal order was entered; and (2) he did not “receive” dismissal order for purposes of Rule 4(a)(6) until he opened envelope containing dismissal order. Moreover, while Dist. Ct. erred in finding that order was “received” on date it was mailed to plaintiff, instant denial of plaintiff’s motion to reopen was still proper since plaintiff failed to show that instant motion was filed within 21 days of date order was delivered to plaintiff’s home.