Kenneth Trujillo-Jamison on Filing Deadlines and Jurisdictional Consequences

Munger, Tolles & Olson attorney Kenneth Trujillo-Jamison published an article in the Sept. 26, 2017 issue of The Daily Journal detailing an upcoming U.S. Supreme Court case that will determine whether an appeals court has jurisdiction over a case if the notice of appeal is filed beyond the deadline permitted under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

In Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Services, the plaintiff sought to appeal a summary judgment and was granted an extension by the district court of 60 days to file the appeal. She filed within the district court’s filing period, but when the case moved to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the court held that it didn’t have jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the notice of appeal had been filed after the 30-day extension limit imposed in Rule 4(a)(5)(C).

As Mr. Trujillo-Jamison points out, the Supreme Court has heard other cases involving jurisdiction over filing deadlines in the past. He details several examples where the High Court has ruled that – unless Congress specifically states otherwise – filing deadlines should be considered non-jurisdictional. He cites Bowles v. Russell as the case that is most similar to Hamer, but he notes that in Hamer, “Congress did not clearly provide that the maximum extension to the notice-of-appeal filing period referenced in Rule 4(a)(5)(C) is 30 days.” Mr. Trujillo-Jamison also explains why the court may reverse the Seventh Circuit decision.

Mr. Trujillo-Jamison’s practice is focused on complex civil litigation, and he has experience in securities litigation, white collar criminal defense, internal investigations and general commercial disputes. He also maintains an active pro bono practice.