So we were waiting to see what the Tenth Circuit did with the appeal. As it turns out, it dismissed it yesterday - as untimely filed. Ouch. That's embarrassing, maybe worse. We'll describe what happened, so it doesn't happen to our readers (at least, we hope, to those on our side of the "v."). After summary judgment was entered, the plaintiff filed a reconsideration motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59. Then nothing happened. For seven months, nothing happened. Plaintiff got frustrated (we assume). Frustration can lead to foolish acts. The problem is that a Rule 59 motion tolls the 30-day time period for appealing only if there is an order "disposing of" that motion. That's what Rule 4(a)(4)(A)(iv) says in black and white. But in Vanderwerf the plaintiff simply withdrew the motion - without getting any ruling whatsoever - and filed a notice of appeal.
Bad move. The Tenth Circuit held that the notice of appeal was filed 6 month too late and dismissed the appeal.
We recognize the severity of today’s holding, and empathize with the plight of parties who are effectively prohibited from filing a notice of appeal because of the inaction of a district court. But we must rely upon the unambiguous standard we have consistently applied to the timeliness requirements of Rule 4.Slip op. at 14.
Morals of the lesson: (1) read the frigging rules before you file any motion - such as a motion to amend or reconsider a judgment - you're not 100% familiar with, because this stuff can be more complicated than you think; (2) read the frigging rules before you do something unusual - such as withdraw a motion without getting a ruling; and (3) if you've had a Rule 59 motion pending longer than 30 days after entry of an otherwise appealable judgment, no matter how frustrated you might get you've got to get some sort of an order disposing of it, otherwise your appeal will be too late, because the appeal period has already run.
If you don't do any of these things, at least make sure to notify your carrier.