[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-13058

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

LAN LI, 

an individual, et al., 

Plaintiffs-Counter Defendants, 

versus

JOSEPH WALSH, 

Defendant-Third Party Defendant, 

JOSEPH WALSH, JR. et al., 

Defendants, 

USCA11 Case: 22-13058 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 04/22/2024 Page: 1 of 5
2 Opinion of the Court 22-13058

SOUTH ATLANTIC REGIONAL CENTER, LLC

a Florida Limited Liability Company, 

Defendant-Counter Claimant,

KK-PB FINANCIAL, LLC, 

a Florida Limited Liability Company, 

Defendant-Cross ClaimantAppellant, 

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 9:16-cv-81871-KAM

____________________

Before GRANT, BRASHER, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This case presents the second time that KK-PB Financial, 

LLC appeals the district court’s summary judgment order on its 

crossclaims against Leslie Robert Evans and his law firm, Leslie 

Robert Evans & Associates, P.A. The first time, we dismissed KKPB’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the summary judgment 

order was not final as there were pending claims against the Evans

USCA11 Case: 22-13058 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 04/22/2024 Page: 2 of 5
22-13058 Opinion of the Court 3

defendants and the other defendants, and the district court never 

certified the order for immediate review under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 54(b). Li v. Walsh, No. 22-10864, 2022 WL 4230212, 

at *1 (11th Cir. July 6, 2022). Now back on appeal, the district court 

has certified its order for immediate appeal under Rule 54(b). But 

because we find that its Rule 54(b) certification was an abuse of 

discretion, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

This Court generally has jurisdiction to review district court 

judgments that resolve “conclusively the substance of all claims, 

rights, and liabilities of all parties to an action.” Sanchez v. Disc. Rock 

& Sand, Inc., 84 F.4th 1283, 1291 (11th Cir. 2023) (emphasis omitted) 

(quotation omitted). Rule 54(b), however, provides a narrow 

exception—a district court may enter partial final judgment if it 

“expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay.” Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 54(b). Certifications under Rule 54(b) “must be reserved 

for the unusual case in which the costs and risks of multiplying the 

number of proceedings and of overcrowding the appellate docket 

are outbalanced by pressing needs of the litigants for an early and 

separate judgment as to some claims or parties.” Ebrahimi v. City of 

Huntsville Bd. of Educ., 114 F.3d 162, 166 (11th Cir. 1997) (quotation 

omitted). 

“A district court must follow a two-step analysis in 

determining whether a partial final judgment may properly be 

certified under Rule 54(b).” Peden v. Stephens, 50 F.4th 972, 977 (11th 

Cir. 2022) (quotation omitted). First, it must determine that its 

decision is “an ultimate disposition of an individual claim entered 

USCA11 Case: 22-13058 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 04/22/2024 Page: 3 of 5
4 Opinion of the Court 22-13058

in the course of a multiple claims action,” and that it is a “decision 

upon a cognizable claim for relief.” Id. (quotation omitted). Second, 

the court must “determine that there is no just reason for delay.” 

Id. We review the first step of the analysis de novo, and the second 

for abuse of discretion. Id. at 976–77.

We hold that the district court erred by concluding that 

there was “no just reason for delay” in this case. The district court 

never explained its reasoning for its Rule 54(b) certification, so “we 

cannot defer to the district court determination and must assess 

whether any obvious reasons support” Rule 54(b) certification. 

Ebrahimi, 114 F.3d at 167. Here, there are no special circumstances 

justifying immediate appeal. The underlying suit is still ongoing, 

and while the claims against KK-PB may have been settled and 

dismissed, the claims against the Evans defendants remain

pending.1 Those pending claims are also sufficiently related to the 

crossclaims on appeal: both concern whether the Evans defendants

improperly failed to timely record KK-PB’s mortgage. Still, KK-PB 

and the Evans defendants argue that Rule 54(b) certification is 

warranted because the underlying suit is complicated and “will 

take a long time to adjudicate.” But lengthy litigation, although 

perhaps inconvenient, is not enough—there must be some 

1 The Evans defendants and the plaintiffs in the underlying lawsuit filed joint 

stipulations of dismissal, stating that the claims against the Evans defendants

had been settled. But the stipulations were not signed by all parties, and the 

district court never entered an order addressing those stipulations. These 

attempts to dismiss were thus ineffective. See City of Jacksonville v. Jacksonville 

Hosp. Holdings, L.P., 82 F.4th 1031, 1034, 1039 (11th Cir. 2023).

USCA11 Case: 22-13058 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 04/22/2024 Page: 4 of 5
22-13058 Opinion of the Court 5

indication that this would diminish a party’s ability to recover, or

that there is some other “pressing need for an early and separate

judgment.” Peden, 50 F.4th at 979 (alteration adopted) (quotation 

omitted). Here, there is no such indication. We accordingly

DISMISS for lack of jurisdiction. 

USCA11 Case: 22-13058 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 04/22/2024 Page: 5 of 5