Opinion ID: 3003710
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: The threshold issue in this case, as in any case, is whether we have jurisdiction. There is no question that this appeal is from a final decision. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Instead, the jurisdictional question here centers around the timeliness of the notice of appeal. With exceptions not No. 08-2024 5 relevant in this case, the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that a notice of appeal in a civil case must be filed with the district court clerk “within 30 days after the judgment or order appealed from is entered.” Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a). Here, the district court’s memorandum opinion granting summary judgment to the Pension Fund was entered on March 24, 2008. Because Perry and Wilk did not file their notice of appeal until April 24, 2008, more than thirty days after the entry of the memorandum opinion, the Pension Fund argues the notice was filed too late and that we should therefore dismiss the case. See Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007) (timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement). But the analysis is not that simple. As we said, Appellate Rule 4(a)(1)(A) measures the time to file a notice of appeal from the date when “the judgment or order appealed from is entered.” The Rules elaborate on entry of a judgment or order in Appellate Rule 4(a)(7), which contains different requirements depending on whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(a) mandates a separate document. The grant of a motion for summary judgment is not one of the exceptions to the separate document requirement listed in Rule 58(a), so a separate document was required in this case to have a proper Rule 58 judgment. Appellate Rule 4(a)(7)(a)(ii) provides that when a separate document is required, the judgment is entered for Rule 4 purposes when the judgment is entered in the civil docket and the earlier of these events occurs: 6 No. 08-2024 • the judgment or order is set forth on a separate document, or • 150 days have run from entry of the judgment or order in the civil docket under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 79(a). A question, then, is whether the judgment was set forth on a “separate document.” The March 24 sixteen-page memorandum opinion resolved all claims and detailed the grant of summary judgment in the Fund’s favor, but it does not set forth the judgment on a separate document and so does not satisfy the “separate document” requirement. There are two other potentially relevant events, a minute entry on March 24 1 and another minute entry on March 26.2 We have suggested before that some minute 1 The March 24, 2008 minute entry states: The defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted, and the plaintiffs’ motion for judgment is denied. Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. At the bottom of the minute entry is a box for “Courtroom Deputy Initials,” and that box contains three typed initials. 2 The March 26, 2008 minute entry states: Notification of Docket Entry This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Wednesday, March 26, 2008: MINUTE entry before Judge Honorable Jeffrey Cole: Pursuant to the minute order and memo- randum opinion and order entered on 3/24/08 (continued...) No. 08-2024 7 entries might satisfy the “separate document” requirement. See Nocula v. UGS Corp., 520 F.3d 719, 724 (7th Cir. 2008); Am. Nat’l Bank & Trust Co. of Chi. v. Sec’y of Hous. & Urban Dev., 946 F.2d 1286, 1289 (7th Cir. 1991); cf. Rush Univ. Med. Ctr. v. Leavitt, 535 F.3d 735, 737 (7th Cir. 2008). But the Fund expressly disavowed any argument that a minute entry constituted the judgment on a separate document that started the running of the notice of appeal clock, so we will not consider such an argument here. (And, of course, there is more to Rule 58 than the separate document rule in subpart (a). See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(b)(1) (stating, “the clerk must, without awaiting the court’s direction, promptly prepare, sign, and enter the judgment” (emphasis added) when, among other things, “the court denies all relief.” )). When a judgment is not set forth on a separate docu- ment even though Rule 58(a) requires that it be, Appellate Rule 4(a)(7)(ii) says the judgment is treated as entered 150 days after its entry on the civil docket. That means that the time to file a notice of appeal starts to run then. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A); see also Employers Ins. of Wausau v. Titan Int’l, Inc., 400 F.3d 486, 488 (7th Cir. 2005). The 2002 Advisory Committee notes to the rule explain that prior to its amendment, there had been a circuit 2 (...continued) granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment this civil case is terminated. Mailed notice. Three typed initials follow that text as well. 8 No. 08-2024 split on the following question: “When a judgment or order is required to be set forth on a separate document under Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 but is not, does the time to appeal the judgment or order—or the time to bring post-judgment motions, such as a motion for a new trial under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59—ever begin to run?” Rules 4(a)(7)(A) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 were amended to impose a time cap: Under the amendments, a judgment or order is generally treated as entered when it is entered in the civil docket pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 79(a). There is one exception: When Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a)(1) requires the judgment or order to be set forth on a separate document, that judgment or order is not treated as entered until it is set forth on a separate document (in addition to being entered in the civil docket) or until the expiration of 150 days after its entry in the civil docket, whichever occurs first. This cap will ensure that parties will not be given forever to appeal (or to bring a postjudgment motion) when a court fails to set forth a judgment or order on a separate document in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a)(1). Fed. R. App. P. 4 advisory committee’s note (2002). So the 30-day time limit to file a notice of appeal did not begin to run until 150 days after March 24, 2008, and the notice of appeal Perry and Wilk filed on April 24, 2008 was timely. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(2) (notice of appeal filed after decision but before entry of judgment treated as filed on date of and after entry); McDonald v. Household No. 08-2024 9 Int’l, Inc., 425 F.3d 424, 426-27 (7th Cir. 2005). We conclude this discussion by reminding litigants that if the court has not entered a proper Rule 58 judgment on a separate document, the parties should ask the court to do so. The rules specifically contemplate this: “[a] party may request that judgment be set out in a separate document as required by Rule 58(a),” Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(d), and there is good reason to do so. “[T]he document clarifies what the ultimate result is, benefiting both the parties (for purposes of enforcement and clarity of legal obligation) and the judicial system (for providing a clear time period for taking an appeal).” Kunz v. DeFelice, 538 F.3d 667, 673 (7th Cir. 2008). Satisfied that we have jurisdiction, we proceed to the merits.