SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARY

Washington, DC Significant Case Summary

Newton v. Grajny
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Case No. 24-CV-0654

Decided: May 14, 2026

The Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s order denying Appellant’s motion for leave to late file an appeal, because the trial court erroneously applied Appellate Court Rule 4(a)(7)’s factors as opposed to Appellate Rule 4(a)(5), and when it did so, it failed to analyze whether appellant had shown good cause or excusable neglect.

Background

Defendant prevailed on a motion to dismiss in the trial court. Plaintiff’s complaint concerned medical malpractice and negligence against several defendants. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim and for failure to comply with the statute of limitations. After the window for noting an appeal passed, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to late file his appeal pursuant to Appellate Rule 4(a)(5). Plaintiff alleged that he was not aware of the dismissal order, and that he was informed by court personnel that there were no orders in the matter and that he had only learned of the dismissal after the time to note an appeal had passed. This Rule requires the movant to establish excusable neglect or good cause. The trial court denied Plaintiff’s motion.
In denying the motion for leave to late file, the trial court relied on Appellate Rule 4(a)(7), which permits the court in certain circumstances to re-open the matter within fourteen days after receiving notice of the entry of judgment. The trial court held that since Plaintiff failed to file a motion to reopen within fourteen days of learning of the entry of judgment, that it could not late-file his notice of appeal. The trial court did not analyze this motion under Appellate Rule 4(a)(5), which follows a different standard.

Holding

The Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s decision and remanded it for further analysis using Rule 4(a)(5)’s test. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court had committed an error of law when it relied on Appellate Rule 4(a)(7) in reviewing the motion for leave to late file, and not Rule 4(a)(5). This mattered, because the standard under Rule 4(a)(5) is whether a party can show either good cause or excusable neglect that precipitated the need to late file. There is no timing requirement under Rule 4(a)(5), and the fact that the trial court denied the Plaintiff’s motion because it was late meant that it failed to analyze the excusable neglect or good cause factors required under Rule 4(a)(5). The trial court also erroneously denied the motion when it considered the merits of the matter as frivolous. The Court of Appeals cautioned, however, that the excusable neglect/good cause standard under Rule 4(a)(5) remains the subject of some debate, because the rule has changed recently and the court has not had an opportunity to state a clear standard for determining whether good cause or excusable neglect exists under Rule 4(a)(5). The parties did not brief this precise issue, so the Court of Appeals did not decide the exact standard under which this motion should be decided under Rule 4(a)(5).

Questions about this case can be directed to Matt Ainsley at (202)-945-9506 or mainsley@tthlaw.com.