ERC Specialists v. South Pinellas Pool

2025 UT App 89

THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

ERC SPECIALISTS, LLC,
Appellant,
v.
SOUTH PINELLAS POOL SUPPLIES INC.,
Appellee.

Per Curiam Opinion
No. 20250152-CA
Filed June 12, 2025

Fourth District Court, Provo Department
The Honorable Derek P. Pullan
No. 240402563

Benjamin P. Thomas, Ryan P. Atkinson, Scarlet R.
Smith, and Jordan Greenburg,
Attorneys for Appellant
Leslie W. Slaugh, Attorney for Appellee

Before JUDGES GREGORY K. ORME, RYAN M. HARRIS,
and AMY J. OLIVER.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 ERC Specialists, LLC appeals the trial court’s order
dismissing its complaint based on lack of personal jurisdiction
over the defendant. This matter is before the court on its own
motion for summary disposition based upon lack of jurisdiction
due to ERC Specialists’ failure to file a timely notice of appeal.

¶2 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). The thirty-day time
period for filing a notice of appeal commences on the date that the
judgment is entered, regardless of the date that the parties receive
notice of the entry of the judgment. See Workman v. Nagle Constr.,
ERC Specialists v. South Pinellas

Inc., 802 P.2d 749, 751 (Utah Ct. App. 1990). If an appeal is not
timely filed, this court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal and
must dismiss it. See Serrato v. Utah Transit Auth., 2000 UT App 299,
¶ 7, 13 P.3d 616. The trial court entered an “Order of Dismissal”
on December 3, 2024. However, ERC Specialists did not file a
notice of appeal until February 10, 2025, more than thirty days
after entry of the Order of Dismissal. Accordingly, if that order
constituted a final judgment, then ERC Specialists’ notice of
appeal was untimely.

¶3 ERC Specialists argues that the Order of Dismissal was not
a final judgment entered pursuant to rule 58A of the Utah Rules
of Civil Procedure. That rule requires that “[e]very judgment and
amended judgment must be set out in a separate document
ordinarily titled ‘Judgment’—or, as appropriate, ‘Decree.’” Utah R.
Civ. P. 58A(a) (emphasis added). Rule 54(a), in turn, states that
“‘Judgment’ as used in these rules includes a decree or order that
adjudicates all claims and the rights and liabilities of all parties or
any other order from which an appeal of right lies. A judgment
should not contain a recital of pleadings, the report of a master, or
the record of prior proceedings.” Id. R. 54(a) (emphasis added).
Thus, although a rule 58A-compliant judgment should
“ordinarily” be titled “Judgment,” it is possible, in appropriate
circumstances, for such a judgment to be entitled “Order.” In
interpreting rule 58A, our supreme court has stated what a final
judgment should look like: “(1) the order must be self-contained
and separate from the opinion; (2) the order must note the relief
granted; and (3) the order must omit (or at least substantially
omit) the [trial court’s] reasons for disposing of the parties’
claims.” Griffin v. Snow Christensen & Martineau, 2020 UT 33, ¶ 20,
467 P.3d 833 (cleaned up).

¶4 Here, the Order of Dismissal satisfies all three of these
criteria, even though it was not entitled “Judgment.” Specifically,
on December 3, 2024, the trial court issued both a ruling on the
motion to dismiss and the separate Order of Dismissal. In the

20250152-CA 2 2025 UT App 89
ERC Specialists v. South Pinellas

ruling, the court explained the basis for and the reasoning behind
its decision. The order, in its entirety, then stated simply:

The Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant South
Pinellas Pool Supplies, Inc. came regularly before
the [c]ourt for oral argument via video conference
on November 4, 2024. The [c]ourt having entered its
Ruling on Motion to Dismiss now ORDERS: This
case is dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction
over the defendant.

The Order of Dismissal was a self-contained and independent
document separate from the ruling explaining the decision that
gave rise to it. Further, the order contained none of the trial court’s
reasoning, all of which was contained in the court’s separate
ruling. See id. ¶ 24. Accordingly, the Order of Dismissal satisfied
all of the requirements for a rule 58A-compliant judgment.

¶5 Therefore, that order was a final appealable order, and
ERC Specialists’ notice of appeal—filed more than thirty days
later—was not timely filed. This court lacks jurisdiction to hear
the untimely appeal and has no choice but to dismiss it. See Varian-
Eimac, Inc. v. Lamoreaux, 767 P.2d 569, 570 (Utah Ct. App. 1989).

¶6 The appeal is dismissed. 1

1. Appellee’s request for attorney fees is denied.

20250152-CA 3 2025 UT App 89