[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-11810

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

CLEAN SWEEP PRODUCTS, INC., 

Plaintiff-Counter Defendant 

Appellant,

versus

CHAMPIONS OF CALHOUN, LLC, 

Defendant-Counter Claimant 

Appellee,

CARPET CAPITAL FIRE PROTECTION, INC.,

USCA11 Case: 23-11810 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 12/05/2023 Page: 1 of 3
2 Opinion of the Court 23-11810

Defendant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

D.C. Docket No. 4:20-cv-00227-WMR

____________________

Before BRANCH, LUCK, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Upon review of the record and the parties’ joint response to 

the jurisdictional question, we agree with the parties that we lack 

jurisdiction over this appeal. 

Clean Sweep Products, Inc. (“Clean Sweep”) challenges the 

district court’s May 17, 2023 entry of summary judgment in favor 

of Champions of Calhoun, LLC (“Champions”). Clean Sweep’s 

second amended complaint asserted three claims against Champions and Carpet Capital Fire Protection, Inc. (“Carpet Capital”). 

Champions’s answer asserted two counterclaims against Clean 

Sweep. 

The district court dismissed all claims against Carpet Capital

and, in its May 17 order, resolved all claims against Champions. 

But the district court did not resolve, or even mention, Champions’s counterclaims in any order.

USCA11 Case: 23-11810 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 12/05/2023 Page: 2 of 3
23-11810 Opinion of the Court 3

We lack jurisdiction over the appeal because the district 

court’s May 17, 2023 order is not final or otherwise immediately 

appealable. Champions’s counterclaims remain pending, and the 

district court did not certify its order for immediate review under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (providing jurisdiction to review only “final decisions of the district 

courts”); Acheron Cap., Ltd. v. Mukamal, 22 F.4th 979, 986 (11th Cir. 

2022) (“A final decision is typically one that ends the litigation on 

the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute its 

judgment.”); Supreme Fuels Trading FZE v. Sargeant, 689 F.3d 1244, 

1246 (11th Cir. 2012) (noting that an order that disposes of fewer 

than all claims against all parties to an action is not immediately 

appealable absent certification pursuant to Rule 54(b)). Nor is the 

order effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final order resolving the case on the merits. See Plaintiff A v. Schair, 744 F.3d 1247, 

1252-53 (11th Cir. 2014) (explaining that a ruling that does not conclude the litigation may be appealed under the collateral order doctrine if it, inter alia, is “effectively unreviewable on appeal from a 

final judgment”).

Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.1 

1 We also asked the parties to address whether the relevant pleadings were 

sufficient to invoke the district court’s diversity jurisdiction in the first instance. Because we find that we lack jurisdiction over the appeal, we express 

no opinion regarding the adequacy of the allegations or evidence regarding 

diversity of citizenship and leave that determination to the district court. 

USCA11 Case: 23-11810 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 12/05/2023 Page: 3 of 3