Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01842/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01842-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert Enkema
Appellant
FTI Consulting, Inc.
Appellee
FTI LLC
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1842

ROBERT ENKEMA,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

FTI CONSULTING, INC.; FTI LLC,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District 

Judge. (1:16-cv-01048-JFM)

Submitted: October 7, 2016 Decided: November 4, 2016

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jonathan Biran, BIRAN KELLY LLC, Baltimore, Maryland; William 

David Bridgers, Andrew Archer Warth, WALLER, LANSDEN, DORTCH & 

DAVIS, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellant. Paul Andrew Fenn,

CONTI, FENN & LAWRENCE, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland; Judith A. 

Lockhart, CARTER, LEDYARD & MULBURN, New York, New York, for 

Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1842 Doc: 26 Filed: 11/04/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Enkema seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

directing arbitration in his civil action against his former 

employer, FTI Consulting, Inc. (“FTI”). This court may exercise 

jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), 

and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. 

Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). Upon review of the 

district court’s order, we conclude that the order in question 

stayed the district court proceedings pending arbitration of 

Enkema’s claims. Consequently, the order is neither a final 

order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See

9 U.S.C. § 16(b)(1), (2) (2012). Therefore, we grant FTI’s 

motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and deny 

as moot Enkema’s motion to reconsider the suspension of the 

briefing schedule. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-1842 Doc: 26 Filed: 11/04/2016 Pg: 2 of 2