of those motions. See United Nat. Ins. Co. v. R & D Latex Corp., 242 F.3d 1102, 1109 (9th Cir.2001) (indicating that ordinarily notice of appeal becomes effective when district court rules on motion for reconsideration). As the Millers’ notices of appeal are not yet effective, we are without jurisdiction to entertain the Millers’ appeal. See id. (limiting appeals to those where a valid notice of appeal is filed). Defendants contend that the order dismissing the case was a final judgment because it was a separate document distinct from any opinion or memorandum. However, because the dismissal order provides the basis for the entry of judgment, the order itself cannot satisfy the separate document requirement. See McCalden v. Calif. Library Ass’n, 955 F.2d 1214, 1218 (9th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). In this case, only one document disposes of
holding that in connection with a motion to dismiss the court may consider a document not attached to the pleadings where the plaintiffs claim depends on the contents of a document the defendant attaches the document to its motion to dismiss and the parties do not dispute the authenticity of the document even though the plaintiff does not explicitly allege the contents of that document in the complaint holding that an order dismissing the case did not satisfy rule 58s separate document requirement because the order was never entered as a separate document holding that a threepage memorandum opinion  order containing the district courts reasoning and case citations failed to comply with the separate document requirement holding the amount of procedural unconscionability was limited by the fact that the arbitration agreement was presented as a separate two page document holding the separate document rule violated when the alleged judgment was included with the memorandum and order of the court