Utah Court of Appeals
Can trial courts extend deadlines for interlocutory appeal petitions? Mottaghian v. State Explained
Summary
Borzin Mottaghian petitioned for permission to bring an interlocutory appeal 46 days after the trial court entered its order, arguing the deadline should be extended due to the court’s failure to serve the order. The Court of Appeals denied the petition as untimely, holding that the 21-day filing deadline runs from entry of the order, not service, and cannot be extended by trial courts.
Analysis
Background and Facts
In Mottaghian v. State, Borzin Mottaghian sought permission to bring an interlocutory appeal from a trial court order denying his motion to clarify. The trial court entered its order on February 9, 2023, but due to a clerical error, the order was never served on Mottaghian’s counsel. Mottaghian filed his petition for interlocutory appeal 46 days later, on March 27, 2023. Recognizing its clerical error, the trial court attempted to help by re-issuing the order on March 7 to restart the 21-day deadline.
Key Legal Issues
The case presented two critical questions: first, whether the 21-day filing deadline under Utah Rule of Appellate Procedure 5(a) runs from entry of the order or from service; and second, whether trial courts have authority to extend or restart the deadline for filing petitions for interlocutory appeal.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Court of Appeals dismissed the petition as untimely. The court interpreted Rule 5(a)’s language, noting that the comma placement indicates the petition must be “served on all other parties,” not that the underlying order must be served before the deadline begins running. The 21-day period runs from when the court’s order is entered, regardless of service. Critically, the court held that the deadline for filing interlocutory appeal petitions is jurisdictional and cannot be extended. Unlike appeals from final orders, no rule grants trial courts authority to extend time for interlocutory appeal petitions.
Practice Implications
This decision emphasizes the unforgiving nature of jurisdictional deadlines in appellate practice. Practitioners must actively monitor court dockets when contemplating interlocutory appeals, as the failure to receive service does not excuse untimely filing. The court noted that counsel had notice a ruling was forthcoming and could have checked the docket. This ruling reinforces that excusable neglect cannot be based solely on a court clerk’s failure to provide notice.
Case Details
Case Name
Mottaghian v. State
Citation
2023 UT App 64
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20230235-CA
Date Decided
June 8, 2023
Outcome
Dismissed
Holding
Trial courts lack authority to extend or restart the 21-day jurisdictional deadline for filing petitions for interlocutory appeal, even when clerical errors prevent service of the underlying order.
Standard of Review
Not applicable – jurisdictional determination
Practice Tip
Monitor court dockets regularly for entry of orders when contemplating interlocutory appeals, as the 21-day filing deadline runs from entry, not service, and cannot be extended.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.