See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a)(3). Thus, the Fee Order was, as of the date it was issued, Decem- ber 9, 2015, an “order from which an appeal lies.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(a).

In this case, the DOL could have, but did not, request this Court to approve a form of judgment or to order the clerk to enter a judgment pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 58(a), as required by F.R.Civ.P. 58(d). In fact, the Court would be restricted from approving any request to do so by F.R.Civ.P.

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1),(a)(7).2 1 Per Rule 58, every judgment and amended judgment must be set out in a separate document, but a separate document is not required for an order disposing of a motion:(1) for judgment under Rule 50(b); (2) to amend or make additional findings under Rule 52(b); (3) for attorney's fees under Rule 54; (4) for a new trial, or to alter or amend the judgment, under Rule 59; or (5) for relief under Rule 60. Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a). 2 In case where a court order was similarly sealed, it was found that the sealed entry of judgment following defendant's guilty plea to conspiring to distribute methamphetamine was not “entered on the criminal docket,” within meaning of Case 1:17-cv-00146 Document 60 Filed in TXSD on 02/08/19 Page 2 of 5 8.

CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons, Western & Southern and National Integrity respectfully submit that the Court should reconsider its rulings in Western & Southern I and Western & Southern II, and either deny Defendants’ motions to dismiss in their entirety or grant Plaintiffs leave to amend. Alternatively, should this Court deny reconsideration and leave to amend, Plaintiffs in the Western & Southern Action request that this Court enter a separate judgment pursuant to FRCP 58. Dated: October 4, 2012 By: Brian C. Lysaght_______ Brian C. Lysaght (Bar. No. 61965) blysaght@lysaghtlegal.com LYSAGHT LAW GROUP LLP 233 Wilshire Blvd Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 566-8166 -and- David H. Wollmuth (pro hac vice) dwollmuth@wmd-law.

Vivendi’s stated concerns are not grounds for depriving Liberty of its right to prompt Case 1:03-cv-02175-SAS Document 316 Filed 09/11/12 Page 8 of 27 3 entry of judgment by this Court under Rule 58(b)(2). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(b)(2)(A); cf. Tropp v. Conair Corp., No. 08-cv-4446 (ENV) (RLM), 2011 WL 3511001, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2011) (directing entry of judgment on collateral estoppel grounds despite pendency of appeal in related case, and noting that plaintiff could seek relief from that final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) if the related case were reversed on appeal). In contrast to the concerns Vivendi raises, Liberty’s interest in obtaining a judgment without delay is real and significant.

Entry of judgment will protect the Class and allow the appellate process to commence.8 IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter judgment in this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(a). DATED: March 22, 2010 Respectfully submitted, COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP PATRICK J. COUGHLIN (111070) MICHAEL J. DOWD (135628) SPENCER A. BURKHOLZ (147029) DANIEL S. DROSMAN (200643) MAUREEN E. MUELLER (253431) /s/ SPENCER A. BURKHOLZ SPENCER A. BURKHOLZ 8 Should the Court enter judgment in favor of plaintiffs as requested, plaintiffs anticipate that defendants will file a motion for stay of execution pending the Court’s disposition of defendant’s consolidated Rule 50(b) and 59 motion and the class member claims process.

at ¶ 3. Under these circumstances, the Museum should be hard-pressed to deny that the Dismissal Order was a final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58, and that its 21-day time limit to move for fees and costs therefore commenced as early as April 2, 2012. But even if the Museum were to belatedly reverse its position on the finality of the Dismissal Order entered on April 2, 2012, there is no question that this Court’s judgment was final as of June 28, 2012 when the Court denied the United States leave to amend.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 made the same change. Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(c)(2). Id.

The facts and authorities supporting WAUSA’s motion are set forth in its Memorandum of Law which is filed herewith, and incorporated herein by reference. WHEREFORE, World Avenue USA, LLC respectfully requests the Court enter Final Judgments against Plaintiff, Beyond Systems, Inc. awarding World Avenue USA, LLC $8,760.00 and $5,580.00 in fees in accordance with the Court’s May 11 and May 18, 2011 Orders, or, in the alternative, requests that the Court direct the Clerk to enter such Final Judgments in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 (b). Dated: June 1, 2011.

“Entry of judgment,” the term used in Rule 54(d)(2)(B), refers to the ministerial task of entering judgment on the docket in a separate document pursuant to Rule 58 and denotes the point at which an appeal may be taken. Brown v. Shalala, 859 F. Supp. 1304, 1308 (E.D. Ca. 1994) (citing United States v. Indrelunas, 411 U.S. 216, 219 (1973) (holding that Rule 58 is intended to provide certainty for the parties involved as to when the time for appeals begins to run.) (emphasis added)).