23, 1997, the court denies both parties' motions, and extends time for defendants to file the requisite declarations; (7) September 24, 1997, plaintiffs file a motion for clarification as to the status of their request to file a third amended complaint; (8) September 26, 1997, the court grants the plaintiffs' motion for clarification and instructs them that a separate motion must be filed regarding the third amended complaint, and the court reaffirms its September 23 order; and (9) October 15, 1997, the court grants leave to file Third Amended Complaint. 9 . Under our circuit law there is one circumstance in which a Rule 58 separate judgment is not required to start the running of the time for appeal. See Schuurman v. Motor Vessel “Betty K V”, 798 F.2d 442, 445 (11th Cir. 1986) (<HOLDING>); see also Hertz, 16 F.3d at 1132 (noting the
holding that where the district court dismisses a complaint and provides a stated period within which the plaintiff may amend the order of dismissal  becomes final upon the expiration of the time allowed for amendment the time for appeal is measured from the date on which the district court order of dismissal becomes final holding that dismissal with leave to amend is not a final order holding that clearly established federal law as determined by the supreme court under aedpa is the law at the time of the statecourt adjudication on the merits not at the time the conviction becomes final holding that a district courts dismissal that expressly grants leave to amend is not final and that a final judgment must be obtained before such a case becomes appealable holding that plaintiffs were entitled to vacate final order of dismissal as void when they did not receive the motion for dismissal or notice of the hearing on the order until after the dismissal was entered