One Day Late, No Jurisdiction: Sixth Circuit Declares Rule 4(a)(5)(A)’s Extension Window Jurisdictional and Affirms Dismissal of Objector Appeals for Failure to Post a Rule 7 Bond

Introduction

In a published decision arising from the East Palestine train derailment class-action litigation, the Sixth Circuit laid down a crisp, bright-line rule for appellate deadlines and class-action objector practice. The court held that the 30-day window to request an extension of time to appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5)(A)—which implements 28 U.S.C. § 2107—is jurisdictional. As a result, a motion filed even one day late cannot be granted, and no equitable considerations or law-of-the-case theory can expand a district court’s power to excuse the delay. On the remedial side, the court enforced a large Rule 7 appeal bond and dismissed the objectors’ appeals from the class settlement after months of noncompliance, emphasizing the prejudice to tens of thousands of claimants awaiting distribution of a $600 million settlement fund.

The decision resolves consolidated appeals brought by a small group of objectors who challenged a district court–approved settlement with Norfolk Southern Railway Company and Norfolk Southern Corporation. The objectors failed to post an $850,000 Rule 7 bond, then attempted—one day late—to obtain an extension of time to directly appeal the bond order. The Sixth Circuit dismissed their appeal from the denial of that extension for lack of jurisdiction and, applying longstanding circuit precedent, dismissed the merits appeals for failure to execute the required bond.

Summary of the Opinion

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (Judges Thapar, Readler, and Hermandorfer; opinion by Judge Thapar)

Date: November 5, 2025

Case: In re: East Palestine Train Derailment, Nos. 24-3852/3880/25-3342

Holdings:

Jurisdictional Appellate Deadlines: The deadline to move for an extension of time to appeal under Rule 4(a)(5)(A) is jurisdictional because it implements the statutory time limits in 28 U.S.C. § 2107. A motion filed even one day late cannot be granted. The district court properly declined to extend the time to appeal the bond order.
Law-of-the-Case Cannot Create Jurisdiction: A prior motions-panel statement suggesting that objectors could still seek review did not bind the district court or expand its jurisdiction. Non-dispositive statements—especially where the court lacked jurisdiction—are not law of the case and cannot override statutory deadlines.
Rule 7 Appeal Bond Enforcement: Objectors’ failure to post the $850,000 bond for over eight months warranted dismissal of their appeals from the settlement approval. The court weighed prejudice, justification, and underlying merits and found each factor favored dismissal.
Merits Snapshot: The panel explained that the objectors were unlikely to prevail on their challenges to class notice adequacy and settlement reasonableness, further supporting dismissal for nonpayment of the bond.

Case Background and Procedural Posture

Following the February 2023 derailment of a Norfolk Southern train carrying hazardous materials near East Palestine, Ohio, residents and businesses filed federal lawsuits. The district court consolidated the actions and, after extensive discovery and mediation, approved a $600 million class settlement in September 2024. Five class members appealed. In January 2025, the district court set a Rule 7 appeal bond at $850,000, comprising $825,000 in administrative costs related to delayed distribution and $25,000 in taxable costs. The objectors neither posted the bond nor made a partial proffer.

Rather than seeking a stay in the district court, the objectors asked the Sixth Circuit to eliminate or reduce the bond—but expressly told the court they were not seeking a stay. A motions panel explained that without a separate notice of appeal, the only avenue would have been a stay; it also indicated the objectors could seek direct review by filing a timely notice of appeal (or a timely motion for extension) in the district court.

The objectors then moved in the district court for an extension of time to appeal the bond order, but did so one day after the 30-day grace period expired. The district court denied the motion as untimely and beyond its jurisdiction. The objectors appealed, and the plaintiffs moved to dismiss the settlement appeals for failure to post the bond.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Role

Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007): The Supreme Court held that statutory time limits on appeals are “mandatory and jurisdictional.” The Sixth Circuit anchored its analysis in Bowles, emphasizing that courts cannot add equitable exceptions to Congress’s deadlines.
28 U.S.C. § 2107: Establishes the default 30-day civil appeal deadline and permits district courts to extend the time if the motion is filed within 30 days after the original deadline and the movant shows excusable neglect or good cause. Because Rule 4(a)(5)(A) implements § 2107(c), its time limits are jurisdictional.
Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Services, 583 U.S. 17 (2017): Clarifies that time limits found solely in court rules are non-jurisdictional claim-processing rules, but when a rule implements a congressionally set deadline, it becomes jurisdictional. This distinction supports treating Rule 4(a)(5)(A)’s extension window as jurisdictional.
In re Tennial, 978 F.3d 1022 (6th Cir. 2020): The Sixth Circuit previously held that when a rule “implements an appeal deadline created by Congress,” it is jurisdictional. The court relied on Tennial to confirm the jurisdictional character of Rule 4(a)(5)(A).
Ultimate Appliance CC v. Kirby Co., 601 F.3d 414 (6th Cir. 2010): Reinforces that deadlines tied to § 2107 are “mandatory and jurisdictional.”
Wright v. Spaulding, 939 F.3d 695 (6th Cir. 2019), and Keahy v. Marquis, 978 F.3d 474 (6th Cir. 2020): These decisions clarify the limits of the law-of-the-case doctrine, particularly that non-dispositive statements (especially when jurisdiction is lacking) do not bind later proceedings.
Powers v. Citizens Union National Bank & Trust, 329 F.2d 507 (6th Cir. 1964) (per curiam): Early circuit precedent recognizing that failure to execute a required bond is grounds for dismissal of an appeal.
In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litigation, 391 F.3d 812 (6th Cir. 2004): Provides the framework for dismissing appeals for failure to post a Rule 7 bond, including consideration of prejudice, justification, and the appeal’s merits; also sets expectations that objectors should seek a stay or make a good-faith proffer.
Fidel v. Farley, 534 F.3d 508 (6th Cir. 2008): Sets standards for assessing adequacy of class notice under Rule 23 and due process; applied here to downplay the objectors’ notice arguments.
UAW v. General Motors, 497 F.3d 615 (6th Cir. 2007); In re General Tire & Rubber Co. Securities Litigation, 726 F.2d 1075 (6th Cir. 1984): Articulate factors for class settlement approval, focusing on likelihood of success, complexity and expense of litigation, and risk of delay—factors that favored settlement here.
Does 1–2 v. Déjà Vu Services, Inc., 925 F.3d 886 (6th Cir. 2019): Confirms that fee awards in the 20–30% range are not unusual, supporting the district court’s approval of $162 million in fees (within that range relative to the $600 million fund).
In re Dry Max Pampers Litigation, 724 F.3d 713 (6th Cir. 2013): Cautions against outsized incentive awards unmoored from class benefit, but supports reasonable awards—used here to uphold $15,000 service awards.
In re Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation, 178 F. Supp. 3d 635 (N.D. Ohio 2016): Illustrates the expectation that inability-to-pay assertions be supported with detailed affidavits and, even then, that some portion of a bond may still be required.
Swanigan v. FCA US LLC, 938 F.3d 779 (6th Cir. 2019): Applied to find forfeiture of notice-content arguments not presented to the district court.

Legal Reasoning

1) Rule 4(a)(5)(A) Deadlines Are Jurisdictional

The court began with the statutory framework: § 2107(a) sets a 30-day appeal deadline, and § 2107(c) allows a district court to extend that time if the motion is filed within 30 days after the original deadline and the movant shows excusable neglect or good cause. Rule 4(a)(1)(A) and Rule 4(a)(5)(A) implement these statutory provisions. Because the rules “implement” congressionally imposed deadlines, the time limits they impose are jurisdictional under Bowles and Hamer as interpreted by In re Tennial.

The consequence is categorical: once the 30-day extension window closes, district courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction to grant relief. The objectors filed their motion to extend one day late; timing, therefore, was dispositive. The district court had no power to grant the extension, and the Sixth Circuit lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal seeking to resurrect it.

2) Law-of-the-Case Doctrine Could Not Rescue Jurisdiction

The objectors argued that a prior motions-panel statement (that they could still seek review by filing a direct appeal) compelled the district court to allow a late appeal. The Sixth Circuit rejected that contention. The earlier statement was not necessary to the panel’s disposition—indeed, the panel lacked jurisdiction over the bond order absent a separate appeal, and the objectors had disclaimed a stay request. Non-dispositive statements in a ruling issued without jurisdiction are not law of the case. Even if they were, law-of-the-case principles cannot expand jurisdiction or override statutory deadlines. The message is clear: litigants cannot bootstrap jurisdiction from dicta, especially where timing statutes withdraw judicial power.

3) Dismissal for Failure to Post a Rule 7 Bond

Turning to remedy, the court enforced the district court’s January 2025 bond order by dismissing the objectors’ appeals from the settlement. Relying on Powers and Cardizem, the court weighed:

Prejudice to the class: The objectors’ appeals delayed payments to roughly 55,000 claimants, many within two miles of the derailment, where approximately 80% of households filed claims. Only 86 out of roughly half a million eligible class members objected—less than 0.01%—yet their appeals jeopardized timely relief for a community facing health and economic harm.
Justification for nonpayment: The objectors offered two reasons—ongoing efforts to reduce the bond and an asserted inability to pay. The court held that neither sufficed. Litigants must either seek a stay, support reduction with detailed financial affidavits, or at least proffer an uncontested portion. The objectors did none of these. Inability to pay was unsubstantiated and, even if proven, would justify a reduction or stay—not wholesale refusal to comply.
Underlying merits: The court previewed that the objectors were unlikely to succeed on their notice and settlement challenges. Notice was disseminated through multiple channels; a 31-day opt-out window could be adequate; and the settlement was reasonable given litigation risks, complexity, and cost. These merits cues weighed against excusing noncompliance.

With all three factors favoring enforcement, dismissal was warranted.

4) Merits Snapshot: Notice and Settlement Reasonableness

Although the court did not reach the merits, it sketched the landscape to assess the bond-dismissal factors:

Notice adequacy: Under Rule 23 and due process, notice must be reasonably calculated to reach and be understood by class members. Here, notice went by mail, website, newspapers, social media, and local TV. The content adequately described the settlement; it did not need to include payment formulas, representative awards, or attorneys’ fee allocations. The objectors also forfeited many notice arguments by not raising them below.
Settlement reasonableness: The district court did not abuse its discretion in approving the $600 million deal. The likelihood-of-success factor—the most important—favored settlement due to uncertainty, litigation delay, and cost. Class feedback was strong (vanishingly few opt-outs, more than 54,000 household claims). The court endorsed $15,000 service awards and roughly 27% fee allocation as typical for complex, risky litigation.

Impact and Implications

1) Appellate Practice: Deadlines Are Non-Negotiable

The opinion is a stark reminder for appellate practitioners: when Rule 4(a)(5)(A) says “no later than 30 days,” it means jurisdictional finality. A late motion—even by one day or one minute—deprives the district court of authority to act. No equitable excuses, no reliance on ambiguous appellate dicta, and no “close-enough” filings can revive jurisdiction that § 2107 has withdrawn. Counsel must diary both the original appeal deadline and the 30-day extension window and file before both close.

2) Objector Appeals: Bond Orders Must Be Taken Seriously

For class-action objectors, the Sixth Circuit tightened the screws on compliance with Rule 7 bonds. If an objector contests a bond:

Promptly seek a stay in the district court or the court of appeals.
Support any claim of financial hardship with detailed affidavits and documentation.
Make a good-faith partial proffer for uncontested components.

The court’s emphasis on class prejudice—here, to tens of thousands of claimants—signals reduced tolerance for strategic delay by a handful of objectors. Failure to engage in good-faith compliance efforts risks dismissal.

3) Settlement Administration: Encouraging Prompt Distribution

Administrators and class counsel can take some comfort: the Sixth Circuit is amenable to enforcing bonds where delay imposes measurable administrative costs and risks to class welfare. While the court did not resolve the outer boundaries of “costs” recoverable via Rule 7, it endorsed the district court’s assessment that administrative distribution costs attributable to delay could be secured in a bond. Counsel should carefully document projected delay costs to support bond sizing.

4) Law-of-the-Case and Jurisdiction: Dicta Cannot Confer Power

The court’s restraint on law-of-the-case use clarifies an important appellate practice point: nonessential comments in an order issued without jurisdiction do not bind later proceedings. Even an explicit appellate suggestion cannot create jurisdiction where Congress has withheld it. Practitioners should seek timely, direct avenues for review rather than rely on suggestive language in interlocutory orders.

5) Notice and Fee Guidance in Complex Class Actions

The opinion offers practical guidance on two recurrent class issues:

Notice content and period: A 31-day opt-out period may be adequate; notices need not disclose every granular payment detail or fee allocation, so long as they fairly apprise class members of the settlement and their options.
Service awards and fees: Service awards around $15,000 and fee percentages in the 20–30% band remain within the Sixth Circuit’s comfort zone for complex, risky cases with extensive discovery and mediation.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Jurisdictional vs. Claim-Processing Deadlines: A jurisdictional deadline (set by statute) is a hard limit; courts lack power to bend it. A claim-processing rule (set by court rule alone) can sometimes be waived or forfeited. Here, Rule 4(a)(5)(A) implements § 2107, so it is jurisdictional.
Rule 7 Appeal Bond: In class cases, courts can require appellants to post a bond to cover “costs on appeal,” which may include administrative costs caused by delay and certain taxable costs. Failure to post can lead to dismissal.
Law of the Case: Prior rulings can bind later stages in the same litigation, but only determinations necessary to the earlier decision. Dicta—especially from orders issued without jurisdiction—does not bind.
Standards of Review:
- De novo: No deference; the appellate court decides the legal issue anew (e.g., constitutional adequacy of notice).
- Clear error: High deference to the district court on factual determinations (e.g., findings underlying notice adequacy).
- Abuse of discretion: Considerable deference to the district court’s balancing (e.g., settlement approval, fees, incentive awards).

Practical Checklist for Litigants

Docket two deadlines: the 30-day appeal deadline and the 30-day extension window under Rule 4(a)(5)(A). File any extension motion before the second window closes.
If challenging a Rule 7 bond, immediately:
- Seek a stay in the district court (and, if necessary, in the court of appeals).
- Submit sworn financials to support reduction or elimination.
- Proffer a partial bond for undisputed costs.
Preserve objections at the district court: arguments not raised (e.g., detailed notice-content challenges) may be deemed forfeited on appeal.
For class counsel, document distribution-delay costs to justify bond amounts and create a record showing concrete prejudice to the class from appellate delay.

Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit’s opinion in In re East Palestine Train Derailment establishes a firm jurisdictional rule with immediate operational consequences: the Rule 4(a)(5)(A) extension period—by statute—cannot be enlarged or equitably forgiven. “One day late” is “no jurisdiction.” On the class-action side, the court reaffirmed its willingness to enforce Rule 7 bonds by dismissing appeals when objectors neither seek a stay nor make a good-faith bond proffer. The court’s application of the Cardizem factors underscores that class prejudice, unsupported hardship claims, and weak merits will collectively justify dismissal.

Beyond this case, the opinion sends two messages. First, appellate timekeeping is jurisdictional business: miss the window and the courthouse doors close. Second, in large class settlements, a handful of objectors cannot hold distribution hostage without complying with bond orders or substantiating any asserted hardship. Together, these principles promote finality and timely relief in complex litigations—particularly where, as here, a community awaits compensation and monitoring after a major environmental disaster.