A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt o gr antt he part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on the br i efs w i thoutor al a rg u m e n t. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (f); 10 th C ir . R . 3 4 . 1 (G ). T h e c ase is th ere fo re or der ed s ubm i t t ed w i t houtor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; nevert hel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and c o n d itio n s o f

1 0 th C ir . R . 3 6 .3 . 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju n e23,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT BA RBA RA EM M I TT,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. P AT RI CI A ANN D I CK E Y; R. I . G. TR A N SPO RT A TI O N ; FI RST F I NAN CI AL I NSURANCE CO M P ANY; DONAL D DI CK E Y, D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. N o. 05- 6059 ( D. C. No . CI V- 0 4 - 1 1 8 0 - C) (W .D . O k la .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e LU CE RO , EBEL , and M UR P HY , C i rcui tJudg es.

B a rb a ra E m m itta p p e a ls th e d istric t co u rt’s d e c isio n to se t as id e d e fa u lts en tered ag ains t defen d an ts Pa tr ici a A n n D icke yan d R . I. G . T ran sp o rt ati o n b efo re grant i ng M s. E m m i t t ’s m oti on t o v olunt ari l ydis m i ss hercase. B ecause- 2-

M s . E m m i t t ’ s cas e w as vol unt ar i l ydi s m i s s ed w i thoutpr ej udi ce, w e do nothave ju risd ictio n o v e r th is a p p e a l. T h e re fo re , w e D IS M IS S th e a p p e a l. I M s . E m m i t tfi l e d a n a c t i o n i n O k l a h o m a s t a t e c o u r ta g a i n s tM s . D i c k e y, R . I. G . , an d F leet Insu ran ce C o m p an yall eg ing M s. D icke yan d R . I. G . w ere n e g lig e n t in th e o p e ra tio n o f a tr a c to r- tr a ile r, c a u s in g M s . E m m itt to b e inju re d . N ei t herM s . D i ckeynorR . I . G . ans w er ed the compl ai ntorent er ed an a ppear ance , so th e sta te c o u rt e n ter e d a “ Jo u rn a l E n tryo f Ju d g m e n t” a g a in st th e m , w ith damages t o be s etl at er . A ft ert he courthel d a damages hear i ng, i tent er ed another“J our nal E nt r yof J udgm ent ” aga i ns tM s . D i ckeyand R . I . G . i n the amount o f o n e m illio n d o lla rs . S oo n ther eaft er, M s. E m m i t tst i pu l at ed to di sm i ssi ng her cl ai m s agai nst F l e e tw i t h o u tp r ej u d i c e a n d fi l e d a n a m e n d e d c o m p l a i n tn a m i n g M s . D i c k e y, R . I. G . , M s. D i ckey ’s hu sband , D on al d D i ckey , and defe nd ants ’ i nsurer , F i rs t F in a n c ial In su ra n c e C o m p a n y , as d e fe n d a n ts. F irst F in a n c ial re m o v e d th e c a se to fede r al cour t . R . I . G . and M s . D i ckeyappea r ed and, as s er t i ng theyhad not actual l ybeen not i fi ed of the s t at e courtpr ocee di ng, theym oved t o vaca t e the s t at e court ’ s or derent er i ng j udgm entagai ns tthem. Fi r s tFi nanci al j oi ned i n that m o tio n . M s. E m m ittre sp o n d e d a n d m o v e d , u n d e r F e d . R . C iv . P . 4 1 (a )(2 ), to v o lu n ta ri ly d is m is s h e r c a s e w ith o u t p reju d ic e .- 3-

T he di s t r i ctcour tdet erm i ned the s t at e court ’ s or derw as m or e aki n t o an entr yof defaul tunderFed. R . C i v. P. 55( a) , r atherthan a de faul tj udgm entunder Fed. R . C i v. P. 55( b) . A ppl y i ng the s t andar ds appr opr i at e t o s et t i ng as i de an entr yof defaul t , i ts etas i de the defaul t s agai ns tM s . D i ckeyand R . I . G . I tthen gr ant ed M s . E m m i t t ’ s R ul e 41( a) ( 2) m ot i on and di s m i s s ed the ac t i on w i thout p reju d ic e . M s. E m m ittfiled a R u le 5 9 m o tio n to re c o n sid e r a n d a lter th e ju d g m e n t in w hi ch s he ar gued the defaul t s s houl d notbe vac at ed. She di d noti ndi cat e thather m o tio n to d ism iss w a s c o n d iti o n a l o n n o t g ra n tin g d e fe n d a n ts’ m o tio n , se e k to w i t hdr aw herm ot i on t o di s m i s s , orotherw i s e cont end the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s deci s i on t o s etas i de the defaul t s affect ed herdeci s i on t o di s m i s s the ca s e. T he di s tr i ct cour tdeni ed the R ul e 59 mot i on. M s . E m m i t tappea l ed, obj ect i ng t o the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deci s i on t o s etas i de t he defaul t s . N ot i ng a pot ent i al j ur i s di ct i onal i s s ue, w e r eques t ed s uppl ement al br i efi ng on w hethert hi s cour thas j ur i s di ct i on t o hearM s . E m m i t t ’ s appea l . T he p a rt ie s h a v e file d th e irs u p p le m e n ta l b ri e fs , a n d th e a p p e a l is re a d yfo r d e c is io n . II “Feder al cour t s ar e notcour t s of gene r al j ur i s di ct i on; theyhave onl ythe pow ert hati s author i zed byA r t i cl e I I I of the C ons t i tut i on and the s t atut es enac t ed byC ongr es s pur s uantt her et o. ” B e n d e r v . Will ia m sp o rt A re a Sc h . D ist. , 47 5 U. S. 5 3 4 , 5 4 1 (19 8 6 ). “[ T ]his co u rtm u st al w ay s satisfyit self o f ju ri sd ict ion b efo re- 4-

addr es s i ng t he mer i t s of a c l ai m . . . . ” C udj oe v. Indep. Sch. D is t . No. 12 , 297 F. 3d 1058, 1063 ( 10t h C i r . 2002) . U nder28 U . S. C . § 1291, w e have j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew “fi nal deci si on s” of t he d i stri ctcou rt s. H er e, ourconce r n w i t h j ur i s di ct i on ar i s es fr om the natur e of the di s tr i ct c o u rt’s d isp o sitio n o f

th is c a se — a v o lu n tar yd ism iss a l w ith o u t p reju d ice . U su a lly a pl ai nt i ff c annotappea l t he vol unt arydi s m i s s al of heract i on w i thoutpr ej udi ce, beca us e s uch appe al s “r ai s e i s s ues of non- aggr i evementand non- fi nal i tythat gener al l ybarappel l at e j ur i s di ct i on. ” B r ow n v. B aeke , 4 1 3 F .3 d 1 1 2 1 , 1 1 2 4 n .3 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); se e a lso B ry a n v . O ffi c e o f P e rs . M

g m t. , 165 F. 3d 1315, 1321 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 9 ); C of

f ey v . Whi r l

poolC or

p. , 591 F. 2d 618, 620 ( 10th C i r . 1979) (p e r c u ri a m ). T her e ar e exc ept i ons t o t he gene r al rul e. See Bry an , 1 6 5 F .3 d a t 1 3 2 1 n .7 . In th is c a s e , th e m o s t p e rt in e n t is th e “ c o n d itio n a l d is m is s a l” e x c e p tio n . See i d. ( not i ng an exc ept i on “w her e the courti m pos es t erm s as a condi t i on of perm i t t i ng di s m i s s al ”) . A ppar ent l yr el y i ng on t he condi t i onal di s m i s s al exce pt i on, M s . E m m i t tar gues t hat , i n vaca t i ng the defaul t s befor e gr ant i ng herm ot i on, the di s t r i ctcourt ’ s or deradded obj ect i onabl e t erm s t o the di s m i s s al s he r eques t ed. N o tably , h o w ev er, she d id n o t m ak e the se typ es o f a rgu m en ts t o the d istri ct co u rt i n herR ul e 59 mot i on, and s he di d nots eek t o w i thdr aw herm ot i on t o di s m i s s on t he b asi s of obj ect i on able cond i t i on s.- 5-

T o c o n fe r ju risd ictio n o v e r th e a p p e a l, a c o n d iti o n a l d ism iss a l m u st re su lt in “ le g a l p reju d ic e ” to th e p la in tiff. S e e , e.g ., Ve rs a P ro ds., In c . v. Ho m e D e p o t, USA , Inc. , 3 8 7 F . 3 d 1 3 2 5 , 1 3 2 7 (11 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) (pe r cu ri am ); B el l e-Mi dw es t, Inc. v. Mo . P rop . & C a s. Ins. G u a r. A ss’n , 56 F. 3d 977, 978 ( 8th C i r . 1995) . I tdoes n o t app ea r th at th is co u rth as y et co n side red “leg al prejud ice” fro m a p lai n ti ff ’s vi ew , buti n C ount

y of Santa Fe v. P ubl i c Ser vi ce Co. of New Mexi co , w e h e ld t hat a R ule 41(a) (2) dis m i ssal t hat had t he effectof forecl osi ng otherpart i es’ cl ai m s w as a “c l earexampl e of ‘ l egal pr ej udi ce. ’ ” 3 1 1 F . 3 d 1 0 3 1 , 1 0 4 8 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). T hi s hol di ng i s i n acc or d w i th otherci r cui tcourt s ’ deci s i ons that , t o s how “l egal pr ej udi ce” w arr ant i ng appea l of a Rul e 41( a) ( 2) di s m i s s al w i thout p reju d ice , a p lain tiff

m u st s h o w th e c o n d iti o n a c tu a llyim p a irs h is o r h e r a b ili tyto b ri n g a n o th e r s u it. See O r t ega Tr uj i l l o v. B anco C entr aldelE cuador , 379 F. 3d 1298, 1302 ( 11t h C i r . 2004) ( percur i am) ( fi ndi ng no l egal pr ej udi ce i n a co n d it ion req u ir ing p ay m en t of d efen d an t’ s co sts an d att o rne y ’s fe es); B el l e-Mi dw est , 5 6 F .3 d a t 9 7 8 (sa m e ); Uni oi l, Inc. v. E . F. Hut t on & Co. , 809 F. 2d 5 4 8 , 5 5 6 (9 th C ir . 1 9 8 6 ), abr ogat ed by Tow ns end v. Holm an C ons ul t i ng C or p. , 9 2 9 F .2 d 1 3 5 8 (9 th C ir. 1 9 9 0 ) (e n b a n c ) (s a m e ); LeC ompt e v. Mr . C hi p, Inc. , 5 2 8 F . 2 d 6 0 1 , 6 0 3 -04 (5th C ir . 1 9 7 6 ) (find ing lega l prejud ice w h ere d istri ct co u rt re q u ire d p lain tiff

to se c u re c o u rt’s p e rm iss io n to re -file h is a c tio n , so h is a b ili ty to re-fil e b ec am e u n ce rt ain).T he di s t r i ctcour tconcl uded the s t at e or der s ati s s ue her e s houl d be 1 char act er i zed a s entr i es of defaul tr athert han defaul tj udgm ent s . G i ven ourl ack o f ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r t h is a p p e a l, w e h a v e n o t r e v ie w e d th e m e ri ts o f th a t d e c is io n .

- 6- H er e, even a s s um i ng t hatthe di s tr i ctcour t ’ s deci s i on t o di s m i s s w as condi t i oned on gr ant i ng defe ndant s ’ m ot i on, the s et t i ng as i de of the defaul t s does notappea rs ever e enough t o cons t i tut e “l egal pr ej udi ce” t o M s . E m m i t t . R ather t han i m pai r i ng herabi l i t yt o br i ng anothers ui t , the rul i ng pl ace s the part i es i n t he pos i t i ons t heyw er e i n befor e the fi l i ng of the fi r s tcompl ai nt . T hati s the comm on s i tuat i on w hen a pa r t yvol unt ar i l ydi s m i s s es a compl ai ntw i thout p reju d ic e . S e e L e C o mp te , 5 2 8 F .2 d a t 6 0 3 (“ T h e e ffe c t o f th is typ e o f

d ism iss a l is to p u t th e p la in tiff

in a le g a l p o s itio n a s if h e h a d n e v e r b ro u g h t th e fir s t s u it.” ). W e al s o ar e conc erned M s . E m m i t tes s ent i al l yi s s eeki ng r evi ew of an i nt er l ocut or y , unappea l abl e or der . O r der s s et t i ng as i de entr i es of defaul tor vaca t i ng defa ul tj udgm ent s or di nar i l yar e notfi nal orappea l abl e unt i l aft erthe c o n c lu s io n o f

th e p ro c e e d in g s . See B al lar d v. B aldr i dge , 209 F. 3d 1160, 1161 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ) (d e fa u lt j u d g m e n ts); Haw . C ar pent ers ’Trus tFunds v. St one , 7 9 4 F .2 d 5 0 8 , 5 1 2 (9 th C ir. 1 9 8 6 ) (e n tries o f d e fa u lt). In th e m u lti p le- c laim 1 cont ext , t hi s cour thas di s appr oved of di s m i s s i ng s om e cl ai m s w i thoutpr ej udi ce in o rd e r t o a p p e a l th e d is p o s itio n o f o th e r c la im s . See Hei m ann v. Snead , 1 3 3 F .3 d 7 6 7 , 7 6 9 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 8 ) (p e r c u ria m ); C ook v. R ocky Mountai n B ank Not e C o. , 9 7 4 F .2 d 1 4 7 , 1 4 8 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 2 ). M s. E m m itta p p e a rs to b e try in g toW e not e thi s cour thas hel d that“[a ] l though a di s m i s s al w i thoutpr ej udi ce 2 i s usual l yno ta fi nal deci si on , w here the d i sm i ssal fi nall ydis po ses of t he case so t hati ti s nots ubj ectt o fur t herpr ocee di ngs i n fede r al court , t he di s m i s s al i s fi nal and appe al abl e. ” A m az on, Inc. v. D i r tC amp, Inc. , 2 7 3 F . 3 d 1 2 7 1 , 1 2 7 5 (10 th C ir . 2001) . I f “pl ai nt i ff ha s been e ffe ct i vel yexcl uded fr om fede r al courtundert he p re s e n t c ir c u m s ta n c e s ,” th is c o u rt h a s ju ri s d ic tio n to h e a r t h e a p p e a l. Id. F u rth er, “ [ i ] f i ti s c l e a rt h a tt h e p l a i n t i ff ma yn o ts t a r to v e ra g a i n wi th a p r o p e r l yd r a wn compl ai nt , beca us e of l i m i t at i ons pr obl ems orotherw i s e, t he ac t i on i s t r eat ed as fin a l a n d th e o rd e r i s a p p e a la b le .” B r agg v. R eed , 5 9 2 F . 2 d 1 1 3 6 , 1 1 3 8 (10 th C ir . 1 9 7 9 ). It d o e s n o t ap p e a r, h o w e v e r, th a t th is lin e o f a u th o rityis a p p lica b le to th is c a se ; th e p a rties d o n o t re fe r to th is a u th o rityo r a rg u e th a t M s. E m m ittis excl uded fr om r e- fi l i ng i n fede r al courtbeca us e of a ppl i cabl e s t atut es of l i m i t at i ons orforanyot herr eas on.

- 7- acc om pl i s h t he s ame end i n t hi s appea l ; s he di s m i s s ed heract i on w i thout p reju d ic e a n d p ro c e e d e d to a p p e a l th e in te rl o c u to ry d e c is io n to w h ic h s h e o bje c ts . A p a rt yc a n n o t s o m a n u fa c tu re a p p e lla te ju ri s d ic tio n . C f . Hei m ann , 133 F. 3d a t 7 6 9 ; C ook , 9 7 4 F .2 d a t 1 4 8 . T hi s appea l i s D I SM I SSE D forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on. 2 E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

M i chae l R . M urphy C i r cui tJ udge