The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the district court is required to enter a separate judgment order following the entry of a dismissal order. In Warren v. American Bankers Insurance Co. of Florida ___ F.3d ___, 2007 WL 3151884 C.A. 10 (Colo.), 2007, October 30, 2007 the district court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of ripeness. A dismissal order was entered, however, the court never entered a judgment on a separate document. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal and then filed a “motion to reconsider” in the district court. Defendant moved to strike the motion on the ground that the notice of appeal deprived the district court of jurisdiction. The district court subsequently denied the “motion to reconsider” for lack of jurisdiction.
The Appellate Court pointed out that Rule 58 generally provides that every judgment must be set forth in a separate document. Certain enumerated motions are excepted from Rule 58’s separate judgment requirement but the court pointed out that an order dismissing an action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not an order expressly excepted from that requirement.
The Court said that at least two of its sister circuits have applied the separate judgment rule when the district court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and held “We conclude the district court’s final decision dismissing Plaintiffs’ case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, or more particularly for lack of ripeness, required entry of a separate judgment consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.