Johnson v. Tim Dahle Imports, Inc.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS ----ooOoo---Jake Johnson, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Tim Dahle Imports, Inc. and John Does I through XX, Defendant and Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not For Official Publication) Case No. 20100657-CA F I L E D (December 2, 2010) 2010 UT App 341 ----Third District, Salt Lake Department, 090900662 The Honorable Tyrone E. Medley Attorneys: Jake Johnson, West Bountiful, Appellant Pro Se Robert O. Rice and David B. Dibble, Salt Lake City, for Appellee ----- Before Judges McHugh, Thorne, and Voros. PER CURIAM: Jake Johnson appeals the trial court's order dismissing his complaint. This is before the court on its own motion for summary disposition based on the lack of jurisdiction due to an untimely filed notice of appeal. A notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after the entry of judgment. See Utah R. App. P. 4(a). If a notice of appeal is not timely filed, this court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. See Serrato v. Utah Transit Auth., 2000 UT App 299, ¶ 7, 13 P.3d 616. Where an appeal is not properly taken, this court must dismiss it. See Bradbury v. Valencia, 2000 UT 50, ¶ 8, 5 P.3d 649. Here, the trial court entered its final order on July 1, 2010. Johnson's notice of appeal was filed on August 3, 2010, one day after the time had run to file a notice of appeal. Accordingly, the appeal was untimely filed and this court lacks jurisdiction.1 See Serrato, 2000 UT App 299, ¶ 7. Based on the lack of jurisdiction, this court must dismiss the appeal. See Bradbury, 2000 UT 50, ¶ 8. Dismissed. ______________________________ Carolyn B. McHugh, Associate Presiding Judge ______________________________ William A. Thorne Jr., Judge ______________________________ J. Frederic Voros Jr., Judge 1 Johnson filed a motion pursuant to rule 59 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure on July 19, 2010. Although rule 59 motions may toll the time to appeal, the motion must be timely filed to do so. See Utah R. App. P. 4(b)(1). Johnson's motion was not timely filed below and, therefore, did not toll the time to appeal. See Blauer v. Department of Workforce Servs., 2007 UT App 280, ¶ 10, 167 P.3d 1102 (stating that an untimely motion under rule 59 has no effect on the running of the time for filing a notice of appeal). 20100657-CA 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
