Iascone

Iascone v. Conejo Valley Unified School District

Good Law
15 F. App'x 401
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 14, 2001No. 99-56217; D.C. No. CV-99-01515-TJHCalifornia1,294 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Plaintiffs-Appellants Nathan Iascone (“Iascone”) and his parents, Sherie and Craig Iascone (collectively, “Iascones”), appeal from the district court’s orders granting defendants’ motion to dismiss, denying the Iascones’ motion for finding of facts and conclusions of law, and denying his motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. We reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand.

The facts are familiar to the parties, so we do not recite them here except as necessary to explain our decision.

A. Our jurisdiction over the appeal from the May 21, 1999 judgment

The June 29, 1999 notice of appeal was filed thirty-nine days after entry of judgment. We therefore lack jurisdiction over the appeal from the May 21, 1999 judgment unless the applicable thirty-day time limit was tolled. Fed. R.App. Proc. 4(a)(1). The time limit was tolled if the Iascones’ June 1, 1999 motion qualifies as one of the post-judgment motions identified in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)(A).

We conclude that the June 1, 1999 motion should have been construed as a motion under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 59(e) and that we therefore have jurisdiction over this appeal. Although the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.