UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
Decided: July 30, 1991.
ABOUND CORPORATION; ALDER CORPORATION ANTELOPE PARK PARTNERSHIP; BRISK CORPORATION; BUSKIN CORPORATION; KATHY A. CALLAHAN; CLEW CORPORATION; DOXY CORPORATION; ECHO CORPORATION; EIDER CORPORATION; FORGE CORPORATION; GERENT CORPORATION; HILAR CORPORATION; HOSTETLER INC.; LARRY HOSTETLER; ISOBAR CORPORATION; JUPON CORPORATION; MOCKELMANN FARMS PARTNERSHIP; HENRY A. MOCKELMANN, III; HENRY A. MOCKELMANN, JR. AND JOY P. SMITH, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
THE UNITED STATES, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
Appeal from the United States Claims Court; No. 739-88 C.
Archer, Mayer, and Rader, Circuit Judges.
The June 22, 1990, judgment of the Claims Court in No. 739-88 C dismissing Abound's complaint, and its October 11, 1990, order denying reconsideration are affirmed.
Abound timely filed its motion for reconsideration of the June 22, 1990, order granting summary judgment to the government on which the judgment of dismissal was based on July 6, 1990, because Claims Court Rule 6(a) excludes intermediate Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays when any rule allows less than eleven days for an action. See Wright v. Preferred Research, Inc., 891 F.2d 886, 890 (11th Cir. 1990); Rados v. Celotex Corp., 809 F.2d 170, 171 (2d Cir. 1986). Abound filed its motion for reconsideration on the fourteenth calendar day after the court's order and judgment, but five of those days, June 232, 24 and 30, and July 1 and 4 do not count. So Abound's July 6, 1990, motion was timely filed on the ninth day of the ten day period. Because the timely motion gave the Claims Court jurisdiction to reconsider its earlier order, Abound's notice of appeal was also timely and this court has jurisdiction.
On the merits, no issue of material fact precluded summary judgment and we affirm on the basis of the court's opinion.
© 1998 VersusLaw Inc.