Hoang v. Microsemi Corporation et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
TAM HOANG, §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
v. § Civil Action No. 4:19-CV-01971
§
MICROSEMI CORP. et al., §
§
Defendants. §
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Ex Parte motion for Extension of Time to
File Notice of Appeal.1 (Dkt. No. 202). Plaintiff requests a thirty-day extension to file his
notice of appeal under Rule 4(a)(5) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure because
Defendants only recently filed their admitted trial exhibits and because Plaintiff’s
objections, (Dkt. No. 200), to Microchip’s bill of costs, (Dkt. No. 198), remains pending,
(Dkt. No. 202).
A district court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal for good cause. Fed.
R. App. Pro. 4(a)(5)(A)(ii). Because Plaintiff did not have time to adequately review
Defendants’ filing of their admitted trial exhibits prior to the appellate deadline, the
Court finds that there is good cause to extend the deadline. See S&W Enters., LLC v.
SouthTrust Bank of Ala., NA, 315 F.3d 533, 535 (5th Cir. 2003) (“The good cause standard
requires the ‘party seeking relief to show that the deadlines cannot reasonably be met
1 While this Motion was originally filed “ex parte”, the Court instructed Plaintiff to confer,
and Microchip filed a Response to this Motion. (Dkt. No. 204).
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 12, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:19-cv-01971 Document 205 Filed 03/12/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2
despite the diligence of the party needing the extension.’”) (citation omitted). The Court
therefore GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion, (Dkt. No. 202), and extends the deadline to file a
notice of appeal by thirty days.2
It is SO ORDERED.
Signed on March 12, 2026.
___________________________________
DREW B. TIPTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2 The Court notes that Plaintiff’s second ground—that Defendants’ Bill of Costs, (Dkt. No.
198) remains pending—does not constitute good cause as it does not toll the appellate deadline.
See Moody Nat'l Bank of Galveston v. GE Life and Annuity Assur. Co., 383 F.3d 249, 250 (5th Cir. 2004)
(“Motions addressing costs and attorney’s fees . . . are generally made pursuant to {Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure] 54, are considered collateral to the judgment, and do not toll the time period
for filing an appeal.”).
Case 4:19-cv-01971 Document 205 Filed 03/12/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2