Opinion
Civ. No. 02-3805-EDL
October 27, 2003
THOMAS L. SANSONETTI, JEAN WILLIAMS, KRISTEN L. GUSTAFSON, ANN D. NAVARO, Washington, D.C., For Defendants
ANDREW B. SABEY, ROBIN S. STAFFORD, Morrison Foerster LLP, San Francisco, California, JOEL R. REYNOLDS, ANDREW E. WETZLER, Natural Resources Defense Council, Santa Monica, California, For Plaintiffs
PROPOSED ORDER ENTERING JUDGMENT UNDER RULE 58
Upon consideration of the parties' Joint Motion for Entry of Judgment Under Rule 58 and the record in this case, it is hereby
ORDERED that the parties' Joint Motion for Entry of Judgment Under Rule 58 is GRANTED, and it is further
ORDERED that final judgment is entered pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58, consistent with the Court's August 26, 2003 Opinion and Order.
JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT UNDER RULE 58
The parties, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby move for entry of judgment in this case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58. The parties ask that judgment be entered because this Court decided all of the legal issues presented in the litigation in its Opinion and Order of August 26, 2003, and entered its remedy through a permanent injunction in an order dated October 14, 2003. No issues remain to be decided.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 governs the entry of judgment in civil litigation. It requires that the judgment be set forth in a "separate document" approved by the court and entered by the clerk. Fed.R.Civ.P. 58. The time for appeal of a district court decision involving the United States government does not end until 60 days after the entry of a judgment issued in accordance with Rule 58. Ruelas v. Chater, 978 F. Supp. 1328, 1329 (C.D. Cal. 1997).
Similarly, the time for a plaintiff to seek attorneys' fees runs from "final judgment." Id. "Courts have consistently held that the requirements of [Rule 58] must be `mechanically applied.'" In re Convergent Technologies, 1990 WL 606270, *1 (N.D. Cal.) (internal citations omitted). See also Brown v. Shalala, 859 F. Supp. 1304 (E.D. Cal. 1994) (rule gives parties certainty as to time for appeal). This rule was amended in 2002 and the amendment "preserves the core of the present separate document requirement, both for the initial judgment and for any amended judgment." Fed.R.Civ.Pr. 58, 2002 Adv. Comm. Notes.
One Northern District of California decision suggests that the judgment need not be a separate document. Cooper v. Apfel, 2000 WL 151279 (N.D. Cal.). However, that decision was issued before Rule 58 was revised.
For the foregoing reasons, the parties respectfully request that the form of judgment submitted herewith be entered in this matter pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.
Respectfully submitted this 23 day of October 2003.