
    Edward ALVARADO; John Azzam; Charlotte Boswell; Tanda Brown; Bertha Duenas, Plaintiffs, Charles Gibbs; Janice Lewis; Maria Munoz; Kevin Neely; Lore Paogofie; Dyronn Theodore; Lasonia Walker; Christopher Wilkerson, Plaintiffs, and Pernell Evans, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, DBA Fedex Express, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 08-16545.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted May 12, 2010.
    Filed June 16, 2010.
    Michael S. Davis, Esquire, Law Offices of Michael S. Davis, James Michael Fin-berg, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Waukeen Q. McCoy, Law Office of Waukeen McCoy, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiffs.
    Matthew J. Quinlan, Esquire, Cartwright Law Firm Inc., San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Barak Jonathan Babcock, David Andrew Billions, Esquire, Seniors, Cynthia J. Collins, Esquire, Frederick L. Douglas, Esquire, Sandra C. Isom, Federal Express Corporation, Memphis, TN, Patricia H. Cullison, Esquire, Francis J. Ortman, III, Esquire, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, San Francisco, CA, David Sydney Wilson, III, Esquire, Senior Counsel, FedEx Litigation, Irvine, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff Pennell Evans appeals the denial of his motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

The district court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal if a party moves within 30 days after expiration of the appeal period and “shows excusable neglect or good cause.” Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5)(A). In Lemoge v. United States, 587 F.3d 1188, 1192, 1194-96 (9th Cir.2009), we held that a district court making an excusable neglect determination abused its discretion when it failed, inter alia, to consider each of the four explicit Pioneer factors as well as the prejudice the moving party would suffer if its motion was denied. Because we decided Lemoge after the district court’s decision in this case, we vacate and remand to allow that court to reconsider in light of Lemoge.

VACATED AND REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     