De Leon v. Marcos, 659 F.3d 1276

De Leon represents a class of ~9,500 human-rights claimants against former Philippine President Marcos.
The class obtained a Hawaii judgment for nearly $2 billion in 1995; it was registered in the Northern District of Illinois in 1997 and later revived in 2008, to remain effective until 2017 under Illinois law.
In 2005 the Del Prado case in the Northern District of Texas sought to enforce the Hawaii judgment against Marcos estate property; Texas initially held Illinois judgment could not be registered elsewhere, but the Fifth Circuit reversed in 2010 permitting registration in other jurisdictions.
De Leon filed a putative Colorado class action in September 2009 to enforce the Illinois judgment against Colorado real property allegedly owned nominally by Denman but beneficially by the Marcos estate.
Denman moved to dismiss in October 2009, and in September 2010 the Colorado district court denied class certification and dismissed the sole claim against the Marcoses on the merits.
Meanwhile, on August 13, 2010 the parties executed a settlement agreement providing a plan to dismiss the Colorado actions in certain terms; three days later De Leon filed stipulations reflecting that agreement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the appeal is timely and properly before the court.	De Leon argues Rule 4 tolling via Rule 59(e) keeps period alive; withdrawal acknowledged.	Denman contends no tolling due to lack of proper disposal order.	Appellate jurisdiction valid; tolling applied due to district court's disposal acknowledging withdrawal.
Whether the stipulation of dismissal was self-executing under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) or required a court order under Rule 41(a)(2).	Stipulation was a self-executing dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii).	Stipulation cited Rule 41(a)(2) and required court approval.	Stipulation was self-executing under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii); district court’s merits dismissal void for lack of jurisdiction.

Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (U.S. 2007) (timeliness as a jurisdictional requirement for appeals)
Vanderwerf v. Smithkline Beecham Corp., 603 F.3d 842 (10th Cir. 2010) (withdrawal of Rule 59 motion tolling depends on district court disposition)
Rodriguez v. United States, 892 F.2d 233 (2d Cir. 1989) (withdrawal/denial timelines affecting tolling under Rule 4(a)(4))
Janssen v. Harris, 321 F.3d 998 (10th Cir. 2003) (stability of self-executing dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1))
Smith v. Phillips, 881 F.2d 902 (10th Cir. 1989) (stipulation cannot be conditioned by court; ends action upon filing)
Copar Pumice Co. v. Morris, 639 F.3d 1025 (10th Cir. 2011) (distinction for Rule 4(a)(4)(B) ripening when withdrawal not dispositioned)
United States v. Garcia-Zambrano, 530 F.3d 1249 (10th Cir. 2008) (standard of review for contract interpretation; de novo if solely textual)