Opinion
23-30828-pes Adv. Proc. No.: 23-03032-pes
07-31-2024
In the Matter of: Jessica Caroline Butler, Debtor. v. United States of American [sic] Department of Education, Defendant. Jessica Caroline Butler, Plaintiff,
Chapter 7
DECISION ON CONSENT TO JUDGMENT AND ORDER TO FILE
PAUL E. SINGLETON, JUDGE
Plaintiff Jessica C. Butler and Defendant United States of American [sic] Department of Education (collectively, the "Parties") ask the Court to approve their Agreed Stipulation and Consent to Judgment. [DE 11.] The Parties' proposed order, however, does not comply with the purpose of Fed.R.Civ.P. 58(a) and could create a "messy path," the type of path the Seventh Circuit warned against in Simon v. Coop. Educ. Serv. Agency #5, 46 F.4th 602, 605 (7th Cir. 2022), cert. denied, 143 S.Ct. 777 (2023). Therefore, the Court reserves its ruling and orders the Parties to file an amended proposed order.
Jurisdiction and Applicable Laws
This Court is a unit of the district court and has subject matter jurisdiction over cases arising out of Title 11 of the United States Code. 28 U.S.C. §§ 151, 157(a) and (b); 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b). To enter judgment in an adversary proceeding, this Court must apply Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Fed.R.Bankr.P. 7058 ("Rule 58 F. R. Civ. P. applies in adversary proceedings."). Simon explains how courts should enter judgment pursuant to Rule 58. 46 F.4th 602 at 605.
In Simon, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision but criticized how it entered judgment. The Seventh Circuit explained the district court should have entered a separate document - consistent with Rule 58. By not doing so, the district court had not "signaled that its decision was final." District courts must comply with Rule 58(a)'s separate document requirement "to eliminate uncertainty about whether [their] entry is final for appellate purposes." Knowing when an entry is final is important "because it helps keep jurisdictional lines clear.'"
Analysis
Here, the Parties' proposed order is inconsistent with Simon and the purpose of Rule 58(a)'s separate document requirement. The proposed order does not constitute a separate document that signals whether the Court's decision is final for appellate and jurisdictional purposes. The Court, therefore, reserves its ruling until the Parties file an amended order that states: (i) who the prevailing party is, if any; (ii) which party bears the costs; and (iii) whether the case is dismissed. The Parties must file the amended order by July 31, 2024.
See 5AP2 Nichols Cyc. Legal Forms § 113:16 in Westlaw for a sample consent judgment order.
SO ORDERED.