Opinion ID: 160754
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: We have “jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts.” 28 U.S.C. § 1291. This court issued a show cause order questioning our appellate jurisdiction, because the district court did not enter a judgment or dismissal order in this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. 3 The issue is whether the district court’s order granting defendants’ motion to enforce is a final decision under § 1291. After briefing, the jurisdictional issue was referred to this panel for disposition. The parties argue the district court’s order is final and we have appellate jurisdiction. We agree. 3 “To eliminate uncertainty as to the finality of district court decisions and ease appellate jurisdictional review, we encourage all district courts to comply with Rule 58’s separate document requirement in every proper instance.” Burlington N. R.R. Co. v. Huddleston, 94 F.3d 1413, 1416 n.3 (10th Cir. 1996). -8- A final decision ends the litigation and “leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.” Catlin v. United States , 324 U.S. 229, 233 (1945); see Albright v. UNUM Life Ins. Co. , 59 F.3d 1089, 1092 (10th Cir. 1995). In other words, it reflects “the termination of all matters as to all parties and causes of action.” D&H Marketers, Inc. v. Freedom Oil & Gas, Inc. , 744 F.2d 1443, 1444 (10th Cir. 1984) (en banc). Our analysis is governed by “the substance of the district court’s decision, not its label or form.” Albright , 59 F.3d at 1092. The absence of a Rule 58 judgment will not prohibit appellate review if the district court decision is unquestionably final. See Burlington N. R.R. , 94 F.3d at 1416 n.3. In its order, the district court: (1) held the Memorandum constituted an enforceable contract, which reflected the parties’ agreement to dismiss this case, including all counterclaims; and (2) granted defendants’ motion to enforce the agreement. In other words, the district court ordered the enforcement of a settlement agreement requiring dismissal of the instant case. Although it would have been preferable for the district court to enter judgment dismissing plaintiff’s action as settled based on its order, see Heuser v. Kephart , 215 F.3d 1186, 1189 (10th Cir. 2000), the order terminated all matters as to all parties and causes of action for all practical purposes, and it left nothing for the district court to do but -9- execute judgment. See Catlin , 324 U.S. at 233; D&H Marketers , 744 F.2d at 1444. Accordingly, the district court’s May 18, 1999 Order is a final decision, and we have appellate jurisdiction.