So, your telling me the court uses the term dismissed (past tense) as something that may or may not happen at some future date? I do believe there are some other terms that the court could use as opposed to "dismissed."

There is no denying that they failed to file the opening brief on time. But it is your contention they were given an extenion of time after the fact? It would have to be after the fact, otherwise it would not be late.

Is that the way an appeals court works? You ask for extensions and get 2 of them. You ask for a 3rd and it is denied. You fail to file the opening brief on time. Then you ask the court for more time after the fact, and get it?

I guess anything is possible. Is it plausible?

Opty