Opinion ID: 2136
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Motion to Dismiss Cross-Appeal

Text: Fincher filed a motion to dismiss Prudential’s cross-appeal claiming we lack jurisdiction over the appeal because it was not timely filed. See 10th Cir. R. 27.2(A)(1)(a). Rule 4(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure sets forth the requirements for filing a notice of appeal in a civil case. Pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1)(A), a notice of appeal must generally be filed “within 30 days after the judgment or order appealed from is entered.” A notice of cross-appeal must be filed within this same time period or within fourteen days of the filing of the first notice of appeal, “whichever period ends later.” Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(3). The court resolved the issue of the effective date of reformation in an order dated February 28, 2006. It resolved the viability of Fincher’s remaining claims in an order dated October 9, 2007, but it did not enter final judgment until March 31, 2008, after denying Fincher’s motion for attorneys’ fees. Prudential filed its notice of cross-appeal within thirty days of the entry of final judgment, on April 29, 2008. This would appear to satisfy Rule 4(a)(3). But Fincher contends Prudential’s time to appeal began to run on March 7, 2008, which is 150 days after the court entered the October 9, 2007 order on the docket. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(c)(2) (stating when a separate document is required, judgment is entered “when the judgment is entered in the civil docket . . . and the earlier of these events occurs: (A) it is set out in a separate document; or (B) 150 days have run from the entry in the civil docket”); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(7)(A) (same). Fincher is mistaken. -6- While a motion for attorneys’ fees does not ordinarily toll the time for filing a notice of appeal (or cross-appeal), see Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(e), a court may defer the entry of judgment and give a motion for attorneys’ fees the same tolling effect under Rule 4(a)(4) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure as a timely motion under Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(e); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(iii). This has the benefit of promoting judicial efficiency by allowing an appeal relating to a fee award to be heard at the same time as an appeal relating to the merits. See Burnley v. City of San Antonio, 470 F.3d 189, 198 (5th Cir. 2006). This is exactly what the court did here, which had the effect of tolling the time for either party to appeal. In its October 9, 2007 order, the court stated: “[F]ollowing the resolution of the plaintiff’s claim for an award of attorney fees . . . the court shall direct the entry of final judgment in this case.” (Appellants’ App. Vol. XII at 4023.) Consistent with this pronouncement, the court entered final judgment on March 31, 2008. The court did not specifically refer to Rule 58 and Rule 4, but it did not have to. We have previously held these Rules “are not applicable where . . . the absence of a separate judgment . . . was not mere oversight.” Utah v. Norton, 396 F.3d 1281, 1287 (10th Cir. 2005). The court clearly intended to delay entry of final judgment in this case and thus, Prudential’s notice of cross-appeal was timely. We therefore have jurisdiction to consider the cross-appeal.