Frankston

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiff Michael Frankston brought this civil action against Defendant Aura Systems, Inc. He prevailed at trial, and a jury awarded damages against Defendant and two other companies that it allegedly controlled. After failing in his attempts to collect the full amount of the judgment, Plaintiff filed post-disposition motions seeking to have the court amend the judgment, appoint a receiver, and authorize a *548 levy on Defendant’s assets. The district court denied the motions, and Plaintiff appeals.

1. Plaintiffs appeal from the district court’s denial of his first motion to amend the judgment is timely. The district court’s minute order was not properly entered as a final order, because it was not a “separate document” within the meaning of Rule 58 and because it did not meet the criteria for “entry” articulated in Ingram v. ACandS, Inc., 977 F.2d 1332, 1338-39 (9th Cir.1992). See also Calhoun v. United States, 647 F.2d 6, 8-10 (9th Cir.1981), overruled on other grounds by Acosta v. Louisiana Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 478 U.S. 251, 254 , 106 S.Ct. 2876 , 92 L.Ed.2d 192 (1986). Thus, although the appeal may be premature, it is not late, and we can entertain it.…