Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-05052/USCOURTS-ca10-15-05052-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 445
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

KAREN L. L'GGRKE, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ASSET PLUS CORPORATION, a Texas 

corporation, et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 15-5052

(D.C. No. 4:12-CV-00596-JED-TLW)

(N.D. Okla.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before KELLY, GORSUCH, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

We raise sua sponte the question of whether this court has jurisdiction to consider 

this appeal. Plaintiff - Appellant, proceeding pro se, filed a notice of appeal of the district 

court’s order granting Defendants - Appellees fees and costs. Fees and costs were 

awarded to Defendants - Appellees as a sanction against Appellant. The underlying 

district court case remains ongoing. 

Except in certain circumstances that are not present here, the court’s appellate 

jurisdiction is limited to review of final judgments. U.S. v. Nixon, 418. U.S. 683, 690-92 

(1974). The district court has not entered final judgment. A trial in district court was 

scheduled, but has not yet occurred. “The law normally requires a [litigant] to wait until 

the end of the trial to obtain appellate review of a pretrial order.” Sell v. United States, 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

June 23, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-5052 Document: 01019448834 Date Filed: 06/23/2015 Page: 1 
2

539 U.S. 166, 176 (2003). “Attorneys and parties . . . must bear the burden of sanctions to 

the conclusion of the case and appeal on the merits of the fully adjudicated case.” D&H 

Marketers, Inc. v. Freedom Oil & Gas, Inc., 744 F.2d 1443, 1446 (10th Cir. 1984) (en 

banc).

Because the order that is the subject of this appeal is not a final judgment and is 

not otherwise appealable, we lack jurisdiction to consider the appeal. 

Appellant’s Motion for an Order Revising Case Style/Caption is denied as moot. 

The caption here did not identify an indispensable party.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Lindy Lucero Schaible

 Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 15-5052 Document: 01019448834 Date Filed: 06/23/2015 Page: 2