A Motion By Any Other Name . . . .

Courts often note that they should avoid exalting form over substance when interpreting laws.  Similarly, in construing legal filings, courts typically eschew reliance on document titles in favor of examining their actual substance.  Such was the path the Ninth Circuit took in a recent decision that led to the quick dismissal of an appeal as untimely.

In United States ex rel. Hoggett v. University of Phoenix, No. 14-17492, the trial court had dismissed a qui tam action brought against a for-profit university.  Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that, in most circumstances, including those in Hoggett, a party seeking to challenge a final judgment must file a notice of appeal within 30 days of that judgment.  Certain specified events, however, can delay the running of the 30 days.  One such event is the timely filing of a motion under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to alter or amend a judgment.  Under Rule 59(e), such a