United States Tenth Circuit

In an action against an insurer, an order denying plaintiff's "motion to reconsider" a dismissal ruling for lack of jurisdiction is vacated as: 1) contrary to the ruling below, Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 required the district court to enter a separate judgment in this case following the entry of its dismissal order; 2) plaintiff's motion, which was brought after plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, should have been construed as one to alter or amend the "judgment"; and 3) plaintiff's previously filed notice of appeal had no effect on the district court's jurisdiction to address his "motion to reconsider".

Appellate Information

• Decided 10/30/2007
• Published 10/31/2007

Judges

• BALDOCK, Circuit Judge., Before KELLY, BALDOCK, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Tenth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• Robert B. Carey (Julie B. Cliff with him on the briefs), The Carey Law Firm, Colorado Springs, CO, for Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee., Billy-George Hertzke (Arthur J. Kutzer, Senter, Goldfarb & Rice, LLC, Denver, CO, and Walter D. Willson, Wells, Marble & Hurst, PLLC, Jackson, MS, with him on the briefs), Senter, Goldfarb & Rice, LLC, Denver, CO, for Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant.