WRIT OF CERTIORARI. The relators failed to file a timely brief or move for an extension of time within the time specified for filing of the brief, with good cause shown, pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 131.01, subd. 1. Relators’ argument—that the issue presented by this appeal is important—does not establish good cause for an exception to the rules or explain why this important issue was not presented in a timely brief. The supreme court has not allowed an untimely appeal to go forward when the delay is due to negligence, inadvertence, or oversight.
Dismissed.
GILDEA, Justice.
Relators American Steel & Industrial Supply and RTW Group filed this appeal on March 1, 2017. The Statement of the Case filed with relators’ Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to review the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals indicated that the transcript from the proceeding before the compensation judge had already been delivered to the parties and made a part of the record. Thus, under Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 131.01, subd. 1, relators’ opening brief was due on or before March 31, 2017 (“If the transcript is obtained prior to appeal . . . then the appellant shall serve and file a brief and addendum with the clerk of the appellate courts within 30 days after the filing of . . . the petition which initiates the appeal . . . .”).
On April 5, 2017, relators filed a motion to accept a late brief, including with their motion the proposed brief to be filed. Respondents oppose the motion, pointing out that the motion is late and no good cause is provided for relators’ failure to file a timely brief. We agree. A motion for an extension of time to file a brief must be “made within the time specified for the filing of the brief” and is granted only “for good cause shown.” Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 131.02, subd. 1. Relators offer no reason why the brief was not filed by March 31, and no reason why an extension of time was not sought until after March 31. In addition, the brief submitted with the motion does not comply with the format requirements of Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 132.01.
Relators ask us, however, to accept their late brief under Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 102, which allows us to suspend the requirements of the rules, or under Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 126.02, which allows us to “permit an act to be done after the expiration” of the time set by the rules. Like Rule 131.02, however, both of these rules require a good-cause showing. Relators’ argument—that the issue presented by this appeal is important—does not establish good cause for an exception to the rules or explain why this important issue was not presented in a timely brief. See In re Welfare of J.R., Jr., 655 N.W.2d 1, 4 (Minn. 2003) (explaining that we have not allowed an untimely appeal to go forward when the delay is due to “negligence, inadvertence, or oversight”).
Based upon all the files, records, and proceedings herein,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion of relators to accept a late brief be, and the same is, denied. This appeal is dismissed and the writ of certiorari is discharged under Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 142.02.