Mottaghian v. State

2023 UT App 64
THE UTAH C OURT OF APPEALS
BORZIN M OTTAGHIAN ,
Petitioner,
v.
S TATE OF U TAH ,
Respondent.
Per Curiam Opinion
No. 20230235-CA
Filed June 8, 2023
Fourth District Court, American Fork Department
The Honorable Roger W. Griffin
No. 201100488
Ann M. Taliaferro, Attorney for Petitioner
Sean D. Reyes and Connor Nelson, Attorneys
for Respondent
Before JUDGES R YAN M. HARRIS , R YAN D. TENNEY ,
and JOHN D. LUTHY .
PER CURIAM:
¶1 	Borzin Mottaghian petitions for permission to bring an
interlocutory appeal from the trial court’s order denying his
“motion to clarify.” We deny his petition because it was untimely,
and we therefore have no jurisdiction to consider it.
¶2 	With regard to timeliness, the governing rule provides as
follows: 	“The 	petition 	[for 	permission 	to 	appeal 	from 	an
interlocutory order] must be filed within 21 days after the trial
court’s order is entered, and served on all other parties to the

Mottaghian v. State
20230235-CA 	2 	2023 UT App 64
action.” Utah R. App. P. 5(a).1 In this case, the trial court’s order
was entered on February 9, 2023. Mottaghian’s petition was not
filed in this court until March 27, some 46 days after entry of the
relevant order.
¶3 	Despite the petition not having been filed within 21 days
of the court’s order, Mottaghian asserts that his petition was
nevertheless timely, and he makes two arguments in this regard,
neither of which we find persuasive. First, Mottaghian mounts a
textual argument, and asserts that, under the language of the rule,
his 21-day window did not start to run until the court’s order was
“served on all other parties to the action.” Id. But Mottaghian
misinterprets the rule. The placement of the comma after the word
“entered” is important and indicates that the textual antecedent
for the verb “served” is not the court’s order, but his petition.
Thus, the rule requires only that his petition be “served on all other
parties,” not that the order must be so served before the time
period in question starts to run. The rule quite plainly requires
that any petition “must be filed within 21 days after the trial
court’s order is entered,” and Mottaghian’s petition did not meet
this requirement.
¶4 	We recognize that, due to some sort of clerical error at the
trial court level, the court’s order was never actually served on
Mottaghian’s counsel after it was entered in the court’s docket.
1. We cite the language of the rule in effect at the time Mottaghian
filed his petition. See State v. Clark, 2011 UT 23, ¶ 13, 251 P.3d 829
(stating that “we apply the law as it exists at the time of the event
regulated by the law in question”). Rule 5(a) was amended
effective May 1, 2023, and states that a petition must be “filed and
served . . . within 21 days after the entry of the trial court’s order,”
clarifying that the 21 days applies to the filing of the petition.

Mottaghian v. State
20230235-CA 	3 	2023 UT App 64
And we acknowledge that this circumstance is unfortunate.2 But
the time period in question, under the plain text of the rule, runs
from the time the court’s order was entered, not from when that
order was served. And Mottaghian did not file his petition within
21 days of entry of the court’s order.
¶5 	Second, Mottaghian contends that his petition is timely
because the trial court—recognizing its own clerical error—
agreed to re-issue the order on March 7 in an apparent effort to
restart Mottaghian’s 21-day clock. The question presented here is
whether the trial court had the authority to restart or otherwise
extend the time to file a petition for interlocutory appeal. We
conclude that it did not.
¶6 	The time to file a petition for interlocutory appeal is
jurisdictional. Powell v. Cannon, 2008 UT 19, ¶ 25, 179 P.3d 799.
And appellate courts lack the authority to suspend the time to file
a petition. Utah R. App. P. 2. Trial courts do have the authority,
under certain circumstances, to extend the time to file an appeal
from a final order. See id. R. 4(e). But no court has authority, by
rule, to extend the time to file a petition for permission to bring an
interlocutory appeal. See generally id. R. 5. Because there is no
express authority granted to trial courts to extend the time to file
2. At the hearing on Mottaghian’s motion, the trial court took the
matter under advisement and stated it would issue a written
ruling. Even without service of the order, counsel had notice that
a ruling was forthcoming and could have monitored the docket,
particularly 	if 	a 	petition 	for 	interlocutory 	appeal 	was
contemplated. Failure to check the court docket for entry of orders
does not constitute excusable neglect that would relieve a party
from a jurisdictional time frame. See Galanis v. Moyes, 397 P.2d 988,
989 (Utah 1965) (per curiam); see also West v. Grand County, 942
P.2d 337, 340 (Utah 1997) (noting in a civil case that a finding of
excusable neglect is prohibited “based solely on a court clerk’s
failure to mail notice”).

Mottaghian v. State
20230235-CA 	4 	2023 UT App 64
a petition for permission to bring an interlocutory appeal, and any
extension is in fact contrary to the rules of appellate procedure,
we conclude that the trial court lacked the authority to “restart”
Mottaghian’s time to file such a petition, the court’s clerical error
notwithstanding.
¶7 	In sum, Mottaghian’s petition for permission to appeal the
trial court’s interlocutory order was not timely filed. Accordingly,
we deny his petition as untimely.