Class action settlement objectors’ failure to pay an appeal bond; FedRAppP 7; Untimely motion to extend the time to appeal the bond order; 28 USC §§ 2107(a), (b), & (c)(1); FedRAppP 4(a)(1)(A), (a)(5)(A), & 26(a)(1)(C); Jurisdiction; Challenge to the district court’s approval of the settlement notice; Reasonableness of the settlement

The court held that it lacked jurisdiction over the class action objectors’ appeal regarding their motion to extend time to appeal the district court’s bond order where they filed their motion one day late. And it dismissed their appeals of the settlement for failure to pay the bond. When a Norfolk Southern Railway train derailed in East Palestine, Ohio, several suits were brought by residents and businesses against Norfolk. They were consolidated into one class action. A settlement was reached, but some class members objected. The district court ordered them to post an appeal bond of $850,000 by 1/30/25. They never posted the bond. Three days after the bond order issued, they filed a motion to appeal the bond, but they asked the court “to construe the motion as a request for a review of the merits of the appeal, not a stay of the bond order.” The court took them at their word. The same day that it issued its order on that motion, they filed a motion “in the district court to extend the time to appeal the bond order.” However, the 30-day deadline to file a notice of appeal of the bond order had passed, as had the 30 days to request an extension. The district court viewed the motion as untimely and denied it. On appeal, the court held that since “the deadline to request an extension to file an appeal is jurisdictional, the district court correctly declined to grant the objectors’ untimely motion.” They argued that it had to extend the time because the court’s previous statement that “the objectors ‘could still obtain review of the bond order by filing a direct appeal’ is binding law of the case.” But the court held that it was not, and even if it were, the court’s “judgment couldn’t expand the district court’s jurisdiction with an equitable extension that would override ‘mandatory’ time limits.” It did not “matter whether the motion to extend was one day, one hour, or one minute late. When the 30 days ended, the district court lost jurisdiction over the objectors’ motion to extend their time to appeal the bond order.” It noted that they were “over eight months late in paying an appeal bond.” As the failure to execute a bond was grounds for dismissal, the court considered the relevant factors in determining whether to dismiss. First, the objectors had delayed payouts to about 55,000 injured claimants. Second, they had given “no valid justification for” not paying the bond. The court noted that their “alleged inability to pay the ordered bond in full doesn’t justify their refusal to post any amount.” Third, they were “unlikely to succeed on the merits of their challenge to (1) the class notice or (2) the reasonableness of the settlement.”