1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO 

Docket No. 35079

T.J.T., INC., a Washington corporation,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

ULYSSES MORI, an individual

 Defendant-Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Boise January 2010 Term

2010 Opinion No. 41

Filed: April 15, 2010

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk 

SUBSTITUTE OPINION. THE 

COURT’S PRIOR OPINION 

DATED MARCH 26, 2010, 

IS HEREBY WITHDRAWN.

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada 

County. Hon. Ronald J. Wilper, District Judge.

District court order granting summary judgment, dismissed.

Moffett, Thomas, Barrett, Rock & Fields, Chtd., Boise, for appellant. Tyler 

James Anderson argued. 

Hawley, Troxell, Ennis & Hawley, LLP, Boise, for respondent. D. John Ashby 

argued. 

__________________________________

BURDICK, Justice

Appellant T.J.T., Inc. (TJT) appeals from the district court‟s grant of summary judgment 

to Respondent Ulysses Mori (Mori) in connection with a non-compete agreement entered into 

between the parties. TJT argues that the district court erred in finding that the Non-Competition 

Agreement was void and therefore unenforceable under California law. TJT also appeals from 

the district court‟s award of attorney fees and costs to Mori in the amount of $107,236.85, and 

the court‟s denial of TJT‟s Motion for Reconsideration. Because we do not have jurisdiction to 

hear this case, we dismiss the appeal. 

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

TJT filed its Complaint on June 1, 2007, seeking injunctive relief and imposition of a 

constructive trust, and raising claims including breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract on 

three separate grounds, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and 
2

tortious interference on two separate grounds. Following a hearing on October 22, 2007, the 

district court issued an order denying TJT‟s motion for a preliminary injunction. On January 31, 

2008, the district court denied TJT‟s request for partial summary judgment and granted Mori‟s 

motion for summary judgment in its entirety, holding that the Non-Competition Agreement was 

void as a matter of California law. The Order concluded: “The Court hereby GRANTS Mori‟s 

motion for summary judgment and DENIES TJT‟s motion for partial summary judgment. IT IS 

SO ORDERED.” 

TJT appealed to this Court from that Decision and Order on March 13, 2008. On June 2, 

2008, the court entered its Order and Judgment, awarding Mori his requested attorney fees and 

costs in the amount of $107,236.85. The Judgment referred to the January 31, 2008, order 

granting summary judgment and stated that Mori was the prevailing party. TJT filed an amended 

notice of appeal with this Court on June 23, 2008. Prior to that date, on June 16, 2008, TJT filed 

a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied by the district court on November 21, 2008. 

TJT then filed its Second Amended Notice of Appeal with this Court on December 31, 2008. 

II. ANALYSIS

A. Standard of Review

“The question of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised by the Court at any time sua 

sponte.” In re Quesnell Dairy, 143 Idaho 691, 693, 152 P.3d 562, 564 (2007). “The timely 

filing of a notice of appeal is jurisdictional.” In re Universe Life Ins. Co., 144 Idaho 751, 755, 

171 P.3d 242, 246 (2007). Jurisdictional issues are questions of law over which this Court 

exercises free review. Christian v. Mason, 148 Idaho 149, __, 219 P.3d 473, 475 (2009). 

B. Jurisdiction

In Camp v. East Fork Ditch Co., this Court defined a final judgment as “an order or 

judgment that ends the lawsuit, adjudicates the subject matter of the controversy, and represents 

a final determination of the rights of the parties. It must be a separate document that on its face 

states the relief granted or denied.” 137 Idaho 850, 867, 55 P.3d 304, 321 (2002) (internal 

citations omitted). We further stated in In re Universe Life Insurance Co., that “[a]n order 

granting summary judgment does not constitute a judgment.” 144 Idaho at 756, 171 P.3d at 247. 

In addition, Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 58(a) requires: “Every judgment shall be set forth on 

a separate document.” 
3

Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) provides that “[t]he judgment sought shall be 

rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the 

affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving 

party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” In other words, “[t]he judgment sought is a 

final determination of a claim or claims for relief in the lawsuit.” Spokane Structures, Inc. v. 

Equitable Inv., LLC, No. 35349-2008, 2010 WL 309004, at *3 (Idaho Jan. 28, 2010). In 

Spokane Structures, this Court explained:

The relief to which a party is entitled is not the granting of a motion for summary

judgment. The Rule refers to the relief to which the party is ultimately entitled in 

the lawsuit, or with respect to a claim in the lawsuit. The granting of a motion for 

summary judgment is simply a procedural step towards the party obtaining that 

relief.

Id. Because the granting of a motion for summary judgment is simply a procedural step, “merely 

typing „It is so ordered‟ at the end of a memorandum decision does not constitute a judgment.” 

Id. at *4. Instead, “[t]he judgment must be a separate document that does not contain the trial 

court‟s legal reasoning or analysis.” Id. 

In this case the district court signed an order granting summary judgment and then 

entered a judgment awarding costs and attorney fees, but no final judgment was entered that 

stated the relief granted or denied and represented a final determination of the rights of the 

parties. Therefore, we have no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. 

III. CONCLUSION

We find that this Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal as no final and 

appealable judgment was entered below; therefore, the appeal is dismissed. 

Chief Justice EISMANN and Justices J. JONES, W. JONES and HORTON, CONCUR.