PER CURIAM:
This case is before the court on a petition for rehearing. See Utah R. App. P. 35. We grant the petition, withdraw our previously issued memorandum decision in this case, and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
In our previous decision, this court summarily affirmed the district court's dismissal of Jackson's petition filed pursuant to rule 65B of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. See Jackson v. Friel, 2002 UT App 170 (per curiam). In his petition for rehearing, Jackson argues the same issues he raised on appeal, except for one issue that he finally brings to the attention of this court — a timely motion for a new trial or amendment of judgment, pursuant to rules 59 and 52(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, is still pending before the district court. In his docketing statement, Jackson failed to inform this court that a post-trial motion was pending in the district court, as required under rule 9 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Utah R. App. P. 9(c)(1).
Rule 4(b) of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure states that a timely motion under rule 52(b) or rule 59 shall toll the time for filing a notice of appeal, and "the time to appeal for all parties shall run from the entry of the order denying a new trial or granting or denying any other such motion." Utah R. App. P. 4(b). This court has previously stated that a timely motion "filed under Utah Rules of Civil Procedure 50(b), 52(b) and 59 suspends the finality of the challenged judgment rendering `a notice of appeal filed prior to disposition of such a motion by entry of a signed order [ineffective] to confer jurisdiction on an appellate court.'" Kurth v. Wiarda, 1999 UT App 153,¶ 5, 981 P.2d 417 (quoting Anderson v. Schwendiman, 764 P.2d 999, 1000 (Utah Ct.App. 1988) (per curiam)). Although Jackson filed the motion in district court before entry of the final judgment, it was "not [filed] later than 10 days after the entry of the judgment," and thus the motion was timely under the rules. Id. at ¶ 6. Consequently, this court is without jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court has not entered a ruling on the motion. See id. at ¶ 5.
Accordingly, we grant the petition for rehearing, withdraw our previous decision in this case, and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Russell W. Bench, Judge, James Z. Davis, Judge, and William A. Thorne Jr., Judge, concur.