Aloqaili v. National Housing Corp‪.‬

Order Seven of the eight defendants in this action for housing discrimination filed a notice of appeal from judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. (Case No. 90-3646). The plaintiffs cross-appealed. (90-3647). Within thirty days after the expiration of its time for appeal, the eighth defendant, Findlay Green Apartments (Findlay Green), moved for an extension of time to appeal. The district court granted the motion without hearing or response from the plaintiffs. Findlay Green then filed its notice of appeal. (90-3758). The plaintiffs now move for dismissal of Case No. 90-3758, Findlay Green's appeal, on grounds that the district court abused its discretion in extending the time for appeal. Findlay Green responds in opposition. The first notice of appeal was insufficient to confer appellate jurisdiction upon Findlay Green. Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 U.S. 312 (1988); Minority Employees v. Tennessee, 901 F.2d 1327 (6th Cir. 1990) (en banc). In granting the motion to extend filed by Findlay Green, the district court did not afford the plaintiffs an opportunity to respond, nor state in its order what unique or extraordinary circumstances required and extension of time. This constitutes an abuse of discretion. Baker v. Raulie, 879 F.2d 1396 (6th Cir. 1989) (per curiam).