Mark Mazza, et ux. v. Bank of New York Mellon

Whether the Third Circuit’s affirmance of the District Court’s denial of a Rule 4(a)(5) motion to extend the time to file a notice of appeal constitutes an abuse of discretion where Petitioners filed their notice of appeal two days late due to reasonable reliance on professional advice and a preplanned absence, where no prejudice resulted to the opposing party, and where the courts failed to meaningfully analyze all required equitable factors, including “good cause. (Suggested Answer: Yes)

Whether a court abuses its discretion when it denies relief under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) without properly applying and balancing the governing equitable standards, including both “excusable neglect” and “good cause,” as required by precedent. (Suggested Answer ■ Yes)

Whether there is a circuit split regarding the application of the Rule 4(a)(5) standards governing extensions of time to appeal—particularly concerning the weight given to reason for delay, prejudice, good faith, and litigant control and whether this Court should resolve that inconsistency. (Suggested Answer^ Yes)

Whether the courts below erred in treating Petitioners’ appeal as untimely where Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 requires that judgment be entered on a separate