Clark v. Bridges, 75 A.3d 149 (2013)

Citation: Clark v. Bridges, 75 A.3d 149 (2013)
Parent Document: Clark v. Bridges, 75 A.3d 149 (2013)
Jurisdiction: DC (municipal)
Effective Date: 2013-08-22
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5147069/clark-v-bridges/ ↗

Full Text

1,372 chars

However, we decline to simply dismiss this appeal. Our past cases suggest that in circumstances like this one, our dismissal would be “without prejudice to reinstatement of the appeal if appellant seeks and receives in the trial court” an extension of time to file his appeal pursuant to D.C. Appellate Rule 4(a)(5).8 Frazier v. Underdue-Frazier, 803 A.2d 443, 445 (D.C.2002) (allowing appellant who had filed a notice of appeal within thirty days of the conclusion of the Rule 4(a)(1) period to seek reinstatement of dismissed appeal if he could obtain extension of time to file from the trial court). If appellant had been entitled to the extra five-day period (as indeed, the Motions Division that previously ruled on this issue concluded), then his appeal would have been timely filed. Given the legitimate uncertainty about how D.C. Appellate Rule 4(a)(6) functioned after the amendments to the Superior Court’s rules and the fact almost “all civil cases” received the benefit of the extra five days for quite some time before the amendment, see Cooter, 885 A.2d at 1280, we would reject any conclusion that the landlord has not shown “excusable neglect” as an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we think it appropriate to treat this appeal as though it obtained the necessary extension from the trial court and consider *154it on the merits.9 II. Trial for Possession

Other Sections in This Document (34)

Full Text