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

1. 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”? 2. 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? 3. 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? 4. 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 document, and where the failure to comply with that requirement delays entry of judgment—and thus the time to appeal—by 150 days?