There are myriad reasons why, when given the choice, North Carolina litigators might want a case venued in federal court as opposed to state court (and depending on the circumstance, of course, the opposite is also true). A list of these reasons might not typically include “more options if we lose,” but the reality is that in many instances the federal rules–of both civil and appellate procedure–provide more options to a losing party than the North Carolina rules. Two examples of this were present in an unpublished opinion issued by the Fourth Circuit on Tuesday, Greene v. Roberson. The first relates to the difference between Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the analogous state rule. As Beth pointed out earlier this week, and as evidenced by the procedural history of Greene, the Federal Rule 59(e) specifically allows for a motion for reconsideration of a final judgment that is not confined to final judgments after trial. This is arguably different, and broader, than North Carolina Rule 59(e) (See Beth’s post). The second example in Greene of where the federal rules differ from the North Carolina rules is with respect to the trial court’s ability to modify the time period in which a notice of appeal may be filed. In North Carolina, per Rule 27(c) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure, the trial court has no authority to extend the time for taking an appeal. By contrast, Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure allows the district court in civil cases to grant extensions of time to notice an appeal and even, as footnoted in Greene, allows the district court to “reopen” the time for filing an appeal in narrow circumstances. These are just something to keep in mind as you analyze which court you want to litigate in…
–Patrick Kane