- 8 -
to file their petition with this Court.
Our holding on this issue is informed in large part by Fed.
R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(iv), which provides that the time for
filing an appeal from a District Court judgment runs for all
parties from the entry of an Order disposing of a timely filed
motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59. In the absence of a specific
statutory provision defining the “determination” referred to in
section 6330(d)(1), it is appropriate in this case to treat the
District Court’s Order denying petitioners’ timely motion under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) as the operative determination.
B. Jurisdiction With Respect to the Notice of Determination
Dated August 8, 2001
Respondent argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction to
review the notice of determination issued to petitioner Paul L.
Hickey on August 8, 2001, on the ground that petitioners’
Amendment To Original Complaint, filed with the District Court on
September 10, 2001, was not filed within 30 days of the notice of
determination. We agree.
By virtue of section 7503, the 30-day filing period within
which petitioner Paul L. Hickey had to challenge the notice of
determination dated August 8, 2001, expired on Friday, September
7, 2001, a date that was not a legal holiday in the District of
Columbia. Thus, petitioners’ Amendment To Original Complaint,
which was filed with the District Court on Monday, September 10,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011