Case ID: f-appx_701/html/0384-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GREEN TREE SERVICING, L.L.C.; Walter Investment Management Corporation; Best Insurors, Incorporated; Mid State Capital, L.L.C.; Mid State Trust II; Mid State Trust III; Mid State Trust IV; Mid State Trust V; Mid State Trust VI; Mid State Trust VII; Mid State Trust VIII; Mid State Trust IX; Mid State Trust X; Mid State Trust XI; Wilmington Trust Company; Mid-State Capital Corporation 2004-1 Trust; Mid-State Capital Corporation 2005-1 Trust; Mid-State Capital Corporation 2006-1 Trust; Mid-State Capital Trust 2010-1, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. Marvell DUCKSWORTH; Roslyn Ducksworth, Defendants-Appellants
    No. 17-60109 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed November 14, 2017
    Kaytie Michelle Pickett, Esq., Andrew Scott Harris, Adam Stone, Jones Walker, L.L.P., Jackson, MS, for Plaintiffs-Appel-lees
    Mitchell Dee Thomas, Esq., Logan & Mayo, P.A., Newton, MS, Peter Emmanuel Ferraro, Ferraro Law Firm, Austin, TX, Jeffery P. Reynolds, Esq., Senior Attorney, Jeffery P. Reynolds, P.A., Jackson, MS, for Defendants-Appellants
    Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

This case presents an identical issue to one we recently addressed in Green Tree Servicing, L.L.C. v. Charles, 872 F.3d 637 (5th Cir. 2017): whether a district court’s order compelling arbitration and dismissing the case with prejudice constitutes a final appealable order when a case involving the same parties and essentially the same dispute is stayed in the district court pending arbitration. We held in Charles that the district court’s order was not a final appealable order, and we therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Id. at 639-40. We similarly DISMISS this case for lack of jurisdiction. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.