I. Background

2 On March 6, 2025, the Court entered its order and judgment in favor of defendant 3 Intrepid Investment Bankers LLC granting its motion for summary judgment against plaintiff 4 Better 4 You Breakfast, Inc. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8002(a)(1), the 5 deadline to file a notice of appeal was 14 days later -- March 20, 2025. Movant failed to file a 6 notice of appeal by that deadline. Instead, counsel filed a notice of appeal on April 2, 2025 -- 7 13 days after the appeal period had expired (two amended notices of appeal were 8 subsequently filed on April 3, 2025, to correct various technical defects). Movant now seeks 9 an extension of time under Rule 8002(d)(1)(B), under which a court may permit a late-filed 10 notice of appeal upon a showing of excusable neglect. 11 12 II. Legal Standard 13 Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8002(d)(1)(B) permits a court to authorize an 14 extension of the 14-day appeal deadline if “the notice of appeal was not timely filed as a result 15 of excusable neglect.” The Supreme Court in Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. 16 Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380 (1993), directed courts to consider four factors in evaluating whether 17 movant has met the required standard: (1) the danger of prejudice to the non-moving party; 18 (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings: (3) the reason for 19 the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant: and 20 (4) whether the movant acted in good faith. 21 In Pincay v. Andrews, 389 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2004), the Ninth Circuit emphasized that 22 courts have broad discretion to evaluate excusable neglect in the context of each case and 23 affirmed that, in an appropriate case, calendaring errors may constitute excusable neglect. 24 However, it is worthy of note that, in that decision, the Circuit observed that “a lawyer's failure 25 to read an applicable rule is one of the least compelling excuses that can be offered” and that 26 “Had the district court declined to permit the filing of the notice, we would be hard pressed to 27 find any rationale requiring us to reverse.”

28

III. Discussion

2 Based on its evaluation of the factors set forth in Pioneer, the Court finds that Movant 3 has not demonstrated excusable neglect sufficient to warrant an extension under Rule 4 8002(d)(1)(B): 5

6 1. Danger of Prejudice to the Opposing Party 7 The Court finds that this factor is neutral or slightly in favor of Movant. While there is 8 limited evidence of specific prejudice to the opposing party, finality in bankruptcy matters is 9 especially important, and delay may hinder the efficient administration of the estate. 10 11 2. Length of the Delay and Impact on Judicial Proceedings 12 Movant filed the notice of appeal 13 days late. Although the delay was not extended, 13 promptness is essential in bankruptcy cases, where delays can impair the finality and 14 implementation of decisions. This factor weighs slightly against Movant. 15 16 3. Reason for the Delay 17 Movant’s counsel concedes that the deadline was miscalendared because counsel 18 mistakenly relied on Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A), which provides a 30-day 19 period for the filing of a notice of appeal in civil cases, rather on Federal Rule of Bankruptcy 20 Procedure 8002(a), which provides for a 14-day appeal period in bankruptcy cases. This was 21 a clear legal error, made by an attorney with extensive experience in bankruptcy matters. 22 The Ninth Circuit in Pincay held that a misreading of the rules, even by experienced 23 counsel, is not excusable neglect per se. The court stated that the determination “is at bottom 24 an equitable one, taking account of all relevant circumstances surrounding the party’s 25 omission.” 389 F.3d at 859. In Pincay, although the court affirmed a district court’s decision to 26 allow an extension where a paralegal committed the calendaring error, it also acknowledged 27 that reliance on an incorrect legal rule by counsel is a weak justification and that courts have 28 discretion to deny relief in such cases. Here, unlike Pincay, counsel made a substantive legal error in applying the wrong 2 procedural rule. The 14-day appeal deadline under Bankruptcy Rule 8002 is explicit and well- 3 known in bankruptcy practice. The failure to recognize and apply it is not a minor oversight, but 4 a fundamental misunderstanding of governing procedure. This factor weighs heavily against a 5 finding of excusable neglect. 6

7 4. Good Faith 8 The Court finds no indication of bad faith. Movant acted promptly upon realizing the 9 mistake. This factor weighs in favor of Movant. 10 11 Balancing the Factors 12 While the Movant appears to have acted in good faith and the delay was not extensive, 13 the Court concludes that the reason for the delay—counsel’s failure to apply the correct and 14 plainly-stated procedural rule—was entirely within the reasonable control of Movant’s counsel. 15 As such, the Court, in the exercise of its discretion, finds that the overall balance of the Pioneer 16 factors does not support a finding of excusable neglect on these facts. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

IV. Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, the Court concludes that Movant has failed to establish excusable neglect under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8002(d)(1)(B). Accordingly, ‘ IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Extend Time to File Notice of Appeal is || DENIED. 6 7 Hit 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Fre > °° Date: April 10, 2025 26 Sheri Bluebond United States Bankruptcy Judge 28