Opinion ID: 3164763
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Jurisdiction over the Due Process Claim

Text: Where the United States is not a party, a civil notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days of the order or judgment being appealed. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). “A timely filed notice of appeal is an absolute prerequisite to our jurisdiction.” Utah Women’s Clinic, Inc. v. Leavitt, 75 F.3d 564, 566 (10th Cir. 1995). Here, the orders granting summary judgment on plaintiffs’ due process claim were entered on August 29, 2014, yet plaintiffs did not file their notice of appeal until March 4, 2015. Plaintiffs contend that their Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment, properly construed as a Rule 59(e) motion, tolled the thirty-day period until the entry of the order disposing the motion. However, even if we construe plaintiffs’ motion as a Rule 59(e) motion, it is well established that “a Rule 59(e) motion, challenging only the award of costs and attorney’s fees, does not toll the time for a merits appeal.” Id. at 567. In an attempt to circumvent this clear precedent, plaintiffs assert that their motion is distinguishable from a typical challenge to an award of costs and attorney fees because it addressed the substantive correctness of the district court’s legal reasoning. But the correctness of plaintiffs’ legal argument does not change the fact that their motion challenged only costs and attorney fees. See Yost v. Stout, 607 F.3d 1239, 1243 (10th Cir. 2010) (concluding that a motion to alter or amend the judgment challenging only the court’s denial of fees – and not the court’s judgment on its merits – did not toll the time in which an appeal could be taken on the merits). Therefore, Yost and Utah Women’s Clinic compel the conclusion that we lack jurisdiction to reach the merits of plaintiffs’ due process claim in this appeal. 4 III. Jurisdiction over the Indemnity Provision Issue Mootness is jurisdictional. Citizen Center v. Gessler, 770 F.3d 900, 906 (10th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S.Ct. 1896 (2015). “A federal court must order dismissal for mootness if the controversy ends prior to a decision even if a justiciable controversy existed when the suit began.” Id. (citing Jordan v. Sosa, 654 F.3d 1012, 1023 (10th Cir. 2011)). Here, the district court ultimately decided not to award attorney fees and costs based on the indemnity provision, thereby ending this part of the underlying controversy that plaintiffs sought to have addressed in this appeal. Thus, plaintiffs’ contention that the indemnity provision is unconscionable has been rendered moot, and we lack jurisdiction to address it. The appeal is dismissed. Entered for the Court Timothy M. Tymkovich