Newton v. Grajny (Dorfman)

── Newton v. Grajny (Dorfman) ── Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals Date: May 14, 2026 Category: General Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS No. 24-CV-0654 ROBERT NEWTON, APPELLANT, V. ANNETTE GRAJNY (DORFMAN), et al., APPELLEES. Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (2023-CAB-007227) (Hon. Yvonne Williams, Trial Judge) (Argued February 11, 2026 Decided May 14, 2026) Chidinma Iwuji for appellant. Rachel I. Viglianti, with whom Barry A. Harris, Crystal S. Deese, and Benjamin S. Harvey were on the brief, for appellees. Before MCLEESE, DEAHL, and SHANKER, Associate Judges. MCLEESE, Associate Judge: Appellant Robert Newton challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion for leave to late file a notice of appeal. We vacate the trial court’s ruling and remand the case for further proceedings.  2 I. Factual and Procedural Background Mr. Newton filed a complaint alleging medical malpractice and gross negligence by appellees (a number of doctors, a nurse, several medical practices, George Washington University Hospital, and George Washington University). In an order dated March 11, 2024, the trial court dismissed the complaint as barred by the statute of limitations and as failing to state a claim. On May 10, 2024, Mr. Newton filed a motion for leave to late file a notice of appeal. See generally D.C. App. R. 4(a)(1) (notice of appeal in civil case generally must be filed within thirty days after entry of judgment), 4(a)(5) (Superior Court may extend time for filing notice of appeal if notice of appeal is filed no more than thirty days late and appellant shows excusable neglect or good cause). In support of the motion, Mr. Newton explained that (1) he initially was not aware of the trial court’s March 11, 2024, order dismissing the case; (2) on March 22, 2024, when he went to Superior Court to file an opposition to appellees’ motion to dismiss, a court employee told him that no orders had been entered in the case since February 2024; (3) he first learned of the order dismissing his complaint on April 12, 2024, when he attempted to attend a virtual court hearing in the case and was told that the hearing had been vacated and the case had been dismissed; (4) court employees told him that day that an email had been sent to the wrong address; and (5) a review of his phone  3 log, email history, and mail communications showed no record that he received notice of the order dismissing the case. Mr. Newton argued that those circumstances established good cause or excusable neglect warranting an extension of time under D.C. App. R. 4(a)(5). The trial court denied the motion for leave to late file. In denying the motion, the trial court relied on D.C. App. R. 4(a)(7), which permits a trial court in certain circumstances to “reopen” the time within which to file a notice of appeal for a period of fourteen days. A motion to reopen under that provision must be filed within the earlier of 180 days after judgment was entered or fourteen days after receiving notice of the entry of judgment. D.C. App. R. 4(a)(7)(B). The trial court noted that Mr. Newton’s motion for leave to late file was submitted on May 10, 2024, which was more than fourteen days after April 12, 2024, the day that Mr. Newton learned of the order dismissing the case. The trial court therefore denied Mr. Newton’s motion for failing to meet that fourteen-day