[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-14236

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

DEREKY MARTIN HAGLER, 

Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellant,

versus

TAMMY RIVERA WILLIAMS, 

a.k.a. Tammy Rivera Malphurs,

Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

D.C. Docket No. 1:19-cv-03015-JPB

USCA11 Case: 22-14236 Document: 51-1 Date Filed: 07/03/2023 Page: 1 of 5
2 Opinion of the Court 22-14236

____________________

Before WILSON, LUCK, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Dereky Hagler (“Dereky”) appeals the district court’s grant 

of summary judgment in favor of Tammy Rivera Williams (“Malphurs”) in Dereky’s lawsuit against Malphurs. Upon review of this 

case, we have determined that we do not have jurisdiction because 

there is no final judgment. When Dereky filed suit against Malphurs, Malphurs responded by filing counterclaims against her. 

Shortly thereafter, Dereky’s husband Albert filed a separate suit 

against Malphurs, raising almost identical claims, but Malphurs did 

not file counterclaims against him. While the district court granted 

summary judgment to Malphurs on Dereky’s claims and denied

Dereky’s motion for default judgment, it denied Malphurs summary judgment on her counterclaims. Thereafter, it consolidated 

the two cases and administratively closed Dereky’s case. There is 

nothing in the record indicating the counterclaims which Malphurs 

filed against Dereky in response to Dereky’s complaint against her 

have been disposed of.

“We have a threshold obligation to ensure that we have jurisdiction to hear an appeal, for without jurisdiction we cannot proceed at all in any cause.” Acheron Cap., Ltd. v. Mukamal, 22 F.4th 979, 

986 (11th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks omitted). Federal 

appellate courts have jurisdiction to review “appeals from all final 

decisions of the district courts of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 

USCA11 Case: 22-14236 Document: 51-1 Date Filed: 07/03/2023 Page: 2 of 5
22-14236 Opinion of the Court 3

1291. Typically, a decision is sufficiently final when it “ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but 

execute the judgment.” Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard, 486 U.S. 517, 

521–22 (1988). In this case we requested and received supplemental

briefing on the jurisdictional issue sua sponte identified by the court.

In Hall v. Hall, 138 S. Ct. 1118 (2018), the Court held that two 

cases were independent despite being consolidated under Rule 

42(a) and allowed the appeal of the completed one while the other 

was still pending. There, an inter vivos trust filed against the son 

for various torts and when the mother/trustee died, her daughter 

became the trustee. The son then filed counterclaims against his 

sister in her capacity as a trustee and individually. However, because she was not a party in her individual capacity in the trust case, 

he had to file a separate action to raise the claims against her in her 

individual capacity. Thus, the son had counterclaims against the 

daughter in the trust case and claims against her in her individual 

capacity in the individual case. After being consolidated, the cases 

were tried together. Just before trial, the district court dismissed 

the son’s counterclaims against the daughter in the trust case, leaving the daughter’s (as trustee) claims against the son as the only 

claims left in the trust case. While the jury decided against the 

daughter in both cases, the judge ordered a new trial in the individual case. She appealed the trust case and the Supreme Court held 

that the cases were separate notwithstanding the consolidation, 

and there was a final judgment in the trust case that could be appealed. In other words, the Supreme Court held in Hall: “when one

of several consolidated cases is finally decided, a disappointed 

USCA11 Case: 22-14236 Document: 51-1 Date Filed: 07/03/2023 Page: 3 of 5
4 Opinion of the Court 22-14236

litigant is free to seek review of that decision in the court of appeals.” Id. at 1131.

As in Hall, in the instant appeal, we also have two cases. The 

first case (“Case #1”) is Dereky’s complaint against Malphurs, in 

which Malphurs filed counterclaims against Dereky. Although the 

district court granted summary judgment in favor of Malphurs on 

Dereky’s claims, Malphurs’ counterclaims against Dereky have not 

been finally resolved.

The second case (“Case #2”) is Alfred’s separate complaint 

against Malphurs. Dereky is not a party to this Case #2. The record reveals that Alfred’s case is still pending in the district court.

Although as in Hall, the two cases in this appeal have been 

consolidated, the instant case is distinguished from Hall. In this 

case, Dereky is appealing the summary judgment against her in 

Case #1. However, Malphurs’ counterclaims against Dereky are 

still pending in the district court, and they are part of Dereky’s Case 

#1.1 This case is not like the situation in Hall—where there were 

no claims still pending in the district court in the case being appealed.

1 Although the district court here instructed that “future filings in these [consolidated] cases shall occur only in” the case number for Alfred’s cases, Doc. 

121 at 19, and although the district court administratively closed Case #1, we 

do not believe that that somehow eliminates from Case #1 Malphurs’ counterclaims against Dereky and somehow relocates them in Alfred’s Case #2, a 

case to which Dereky is not even a party.

USCA11 Case: 22-14236 Document: 51-1 Date Filed: 07/03/2023 Page: 4 of 5
22-14236 Opinion of the Court 5

In other words, in the case on appeal, Case #1, there is not 

a final judgment because Malphurs’ counterclaims against Dereky 

are still pending in the district court. Accordingly, we do not have 

appellate jurisdiction. The appeal is

DISMISSED.

USCA11 Case: 22-14236 Document: 51-1 Date Filed: 07/03/2023 Page: 5 of 5