FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

SEPT 2, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 07-14547

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 05-00132-CV-CDL-4

KIMBERLY M. ADAMS, 

individually and on behalf of a class of persons 

similarly situated, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

MONUMENTAL GENERAL CASUALTY COMPANY, 

a corporation, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Georgia

_________________________

Before WILSON, PRYOR and COX, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
2

Monumental General Casualty Company appeals an order that granted its

motion to compel arbitration of a dispute with Kimberly Adams. Monumental

complains that the district court compelled arbitration under one contract instead of

two contracts. We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

When she bought a truck, Adams entered a retail installment contract to

finance both the purchase of the truck and the premium for an insurance policy

from Monumental. The policy insured Adams for the difference between what she

would owe under the retail installment contract and what an insurer would pay for

the truck if the truck was damaged beyond repair. Adams paid the loan early.

Adams filed a lawsuit against Monumental for a refund of some of the

premium because she paid the loan early. The district court granted a motion filed

by Monumental to compel arbitration of the dispute under the Federal Arbitration

Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 3, 4, and to stay all judicial proceedings relating to the

transaction. Both the retail installment contract and the certificate of insurance

issued by Monumental included an arbitration agreement.

The district court concluded that the arbitration agreements contained in

both the retail installment contract and the certificate of insurance were

enforceable. The district court later denied Adams’s motion for reconsideration,

but the court modified its order to delete a sentence about the retail installment
3

contract as “unnecessary dicta”:

When the Court made that statement, it understood that Plaintiff was

relying upon the retail installment contract, which included the

arbitration clause, as an essential part of her claim. Plaintiff now

represents to the Court that the retail installment contract is not

essential to her claim in this case. If Plaintiff’s claim is not dependent

upon the retail installment contract, then that would affect the Court’s

analysis of Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration under the retail

installment contract. Accordingly, the Court hereby amends its July

17, 2007 Order by deleting that sentence which the Court considers to

be dicta.

The district court stated that it was not deciding whether arbitration of Adams’s

complaint was required under the retail installment contract.

We are required to examine our jurisdiction sua sponte. Finn v. PrudentialBache Sec., Inc., 821 F.2d 581, 584–85 (11th Cir. 1987). We review jurisdictional

issues de novo. AT&T Mobility, L.L.C. v. Nat’l Ass’n for Stock Car Auto Racing,

Inc., 494 F.3d 1356, 1360 (11th Cir. 2007).

 We have no jurisdiction over this appeal because the district court

compelled arbitration. 9 U.S.C. § 16(b)(2). Section 16 governs the appealability

of interlocutory orders regarding arbitration, Conart, Inc. v. Hellmuth, Obata +

Dassabaum, Inc., 504 F.3d 1208, 1210 (11th Cir. 2007), and subsection (b)(2)

states that “an appeal may not be taken from an interlocutory order . . . directing

arbitration to proceed,” 9 U.S.C. § 16(b)(2). This section resolves this appeal. 

Monumental argues that we have jurisdiction because the district court
4

denied as moot the right of Monumental to arbitrate under the retail installment

contract. Section 16 provides that “an appeal may be taken from (1) an order . . .

(B) denying a petition under section 4 of this title to order arbitration to proceed.” 

9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(1)(B). We disagree with the notion that the district court denied

Monumental the right to arbitrate. 

“[A] party cannot appeal a district court’s order unless, at the end of the day,

the parties are forced to settle their dispute other than by arbitration.” Augustea

Impb Et Salvataggi v. Mitsubishi Corp., 126 F.3d 95, 98–99 (2d. Cir. 1997). The

district court compelled arbitration of the parties’ dispute without deciding whether

arbitration was also available under the retail installment contract. When a district

court compels arbitration of a dispute under one contract and is silent about

whether another contract provides for arbitration of the same dispute, section

16(a)(1)(B) is not implicated. We also cannot afford Monumental any relief

without undermining the extant order to compel arbitration, which is unreviewable

under section 16(b)(2). 

The appeal of Monumental is DISMISSED.