Ct. of Appeals denied defendant’s motion to dismiss appeal, even though defendant argued that plaintiff had filed her notice of appeal 113 days after Dist. Ct.’s entry of Rule 77(d) order that was entered day after Dist. Ct. had entered “Memorandum Opinion and Order” that dismissed plaintiff’s employment discrimination claim with prejudice. While defendant argued that Rule 77(d) order, which recited Dist. Ct.’s dismissal order, as well as canceled as moot other scheduled matters, complied with Rule 58’s requirement of filing separate document that reflected Dist. Ct.’s judgment, so as to trigger time frame for filing notice of appeal, Ct. of Appeals found that Rule 77(d) order did not satisfy requirements of Rule 58, where instant Rule 77(d) order was confusing about whether it was meant as a separate judgment, and where Rule 77(d) order was not signed by court clerk. As such, official judgment date was 150 days after Dist. Ct.’s dismissal order, and thus instant notice of appeal was timely.