Circuit Technology v. Semitool

Circuit Technology v. Semitool

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
 

----ooOoo----

Circuit Technology, Inc.,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

Semitool, Inc.,

Defendant and Appellee.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20040738-CA
 

F I L E D
(December 16, 2004)
 

2004 UT App 476

 

-----

Third District, Salt Lake Department

The Honorable Tyrone E. Medley

Attorneys: David L. Arrington, David W. Tufts, and Chad J. Pomeroy, Salt Lake City, for Appellant

Brent E. Johnson and Reha Deal, Salt Lake City, for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Billings, Bench, and Orme.

PER CURIAM:

    Circuit Technology, Inc. (Circuit Technology) appeals from a judgment signed and filed by the trial court on July 14, 2004, but noted again on the trial court docket on July 26, 2004, as "filed" and "entered" on that date. Circuit Technology filed its notice of appeal on August 24, 2004. This case is before the court on Semitool, Inc.'s motion for summary disposition on the basis that this court lacks jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was filed untimely.

    Circuit Technology argues that its notice of appeal was timely filed. A notice of appeal must be filed "with the clerk of the trial court within 30 days after the date of entry of the judgment or order appealed from." Utah R. App. P. 4(a). If an appeal is not timely filed, this court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal, and must dismiss. See Serrato v. Utah Transit Auth., 2000 UT App 299,¶7, 13 P.3d 616.

    Circuit Technology first argues that its appeal is timely under rule 58A of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure because the trial court docket shows that the underlying judgment was "filed" on two dates--July 14, 2004 and July 26, 2004--and the latter date is the operative date for purposes of appeal. Rule 58A(b) requires that "all judgments shall be signed by the judge and filed with the clerk." Utah R. Civ. P. 58A(b). A judgment "is complete and shall be deemed entered for all purposes . . . when the same is signed and filed as herein above provided." Utah R. Civ. P. 58A(c). The only judgment of record in this case was signed by the trial court and filed with its clerk on July 14. The judgment was therefore entered, pursuant to rule 58A(c), on July 14. The fact that another entry appears on the trial court docket is irrelevant. See, e.g., Salt Lake City v. Griffin, 750 P.2d 194, 194 (Utah Ct. App. 1988) (per curiam) (dismissing case for lack of jurisdiction when "review of the record reveal[ed] no judgment or sentencing order signed by the trial court supporting the computerized docket entry provided by appellant").

    Circuit Technology also argues that the trial court agreed to "vacate" the July 14 judgment and enter a new one, which was entered on July 26. However, as set forth above, the record is clear that the only judgment entered was the July 14 judgment. There is no record evidence of any order to vacate. Nor is there any record of an objection to, or motion to set aside, the July 14 judgment. Further, Circuit Technology's affidavit asserting facts beyond the record is not properly before this court. See Utah R. App. P. 11(g).

    Circuit Technology was required to file its notice of appeal thirty days after the July 14 judgment was entered. Its notice of appeal was filed on August 24, 2004, eleven days late. Therefore, this court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal.

    Accordingly, we must dismiss this appeal.

______________________________

Judith M. Billings,

Presiding Judge

______________________________

Russell W. Bench,

Associate Presiding Judge

______________________________

Gregory K. Orme, Judge