George Yono v. Deutsche Bank National Trust , 606 F. App'x 300 ( 2015 )

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 15a0493n.06
No. 14-1995
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
GEORGE YONO and SALWA YONO, FILED
Jul 10, 2015
Plaintiffs-Appellants, DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
v.
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL
TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
FOR LONG BEACH MORTGAGE STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
TRUST 2004-6, and JPMORGAN EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
CHASE BANK, NA, SUCCESSOR TO
WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK,
Defendants-Appellees.
BEFORE: CLAY and SUTTON, Circuit Judges; and WATSON, District Judge.
PER CURIAM. Plaintiffs George and Salwa Yono filed an amended complaint in the
Oakland County Circuit Court in Michigan seeking, among other relief, quiet title to property
located in West Bloomfield, Michigan. Defendants Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
(“Deutsche Bank”), as Trustee for Long Beach Mortgage Trust 2004-6, and JPMorgan Chase
Bank, N.A. (“JPMorgan”), successor to Washington Mutual Bank, removed the complaint to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on July 26, 2013. On February
28, 2014, the district court issued an order granting Deutsche Bank’s motion to dismiss and
JPMorgan’s motion for summary judgement. The district court denied Plaintiffs’ subsequent

The Honorable Michael H. Watson, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, sitting
by designation.
No. 14-1995
motion for reconsideration. Plaintiffs failed to file a timely notice of appeal; rather, on June 6,
2014, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file their notice of appeal out of time. After receiving
briefing by the parties, the district court denied Plaintiffs’ motion. Plaintiffs now argue that the
district court abused its discretion in so doing.
Plaintiffs contend that a “setting change” in their counsel’s electronic filing system and a
“computer glitch” experienced by Plaintiffs’ counsel should excuse their failure to file their
notice of appeal by the specified deadline. However, the explanations and arguments put
forward by Plaintiffs fall far short of the “unique or extraordinary circumstances” that Plaintiffs
must demonstrate in order to be granted leave to file an untimely notice of appeal. Marsh v.
Richardson, 873 F.2d 129, 130 (6th Cir. 1989). After carefully considering the record, the
parties’ arguments, and applicable law, we find that the district court’s reasoning and
conclusions are sound. We therefore hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion by
denying Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a notice of appeal out of time. We AFFIRM on the
basis of the district court’s order dated July 11, 2014.
2