FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T FEB 23, 201 2 J OHN LEY CLERK IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 13 57 5 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 :1 1- cv -6 02 65 -FAM RICHAR D B. MAYER, Pl ai nt iff -Co un te r Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us WALL STREET EQUITY GROUP, INC., a Fl or id a Co rp or at io n, STEVEN S. W EST, an i nd iv idua l Defen da nt s- Co un te r Cl ai m an ts -Ap pe ll an ts .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, HULL andBLACK, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:I.

The Defen da nt s- App el la nt s, Wall Str eetEqu it y , Inc . andSte ve n S . W es t, ap pe al th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er d en y in g t he ir m ot io n fo r at to rn ey ’s fees . After fil in g aco m

pl ai nt , th e Pl ai nt iff

-Ap pe ll ee, Ri ch ardB. Mayer, set tl edhi s FLSA ov ert im e p ay

cla im with h is form er em

pl oyer. May er’s at to rn ey fil edth e se tt le m en t wi th th e d is tri ctco urt an d re qu es te d a tt orne y ’s fees . After t he di st ric t co urt d is m is se d t he cas e p ur su an t t o s et tl em en t, Wall Str eetEqu it y an d Westfil ed th ei r op po si ti on to Mayer’ s fe e m ot io n andth enreque st edth ei r own att orne y s’ fees , all eg in g t ha t M ay er’s at to rn ey pu rs ue d t he li ti ga ti on inba d fa it h. Th e d is tri ct co urt d en ie d Wall Str eetEqu it y an d West ’s m ot io n wi th ou t ex pl an at io n. Wall StreetEqu it y

an d Westth enap pe al edth atord er t o t hi s co urt wh il e Ma y er’s fee m ot io n re m ai ne d p en di ng be fo re the di st ric t co urt. Si nc e th e fi li ng of t hi s ap pe al , a m ag is tra te jud ge ha s en te reda rep ort an d re co m m en da ti on th atth e d is tri ctco urt gr an t M ay er’s fee m ot io n andde ny W al l St reetEqu it y an d West ’s fee m ot io n. We co nc lu de th atbe cau se th e fee di sp ut e is no t yet fin al inth e d is tri ctco urt, we l ack juri sd ic ti on to co ns id er thi s ap pe al . 1

Be fore we dismissed the pre sent appe al on Feb. 23, 2012, the district court a dopted the 1 mag istrate judg e’s r ecommenda tion, gr anted Ma

yer’ s feemotion, and denied Wall Street Equity and West’s fee motion on Feb. 17, 2012. Our opinion does not address the substanc e of Wall Street Equity

and West’s appe al of the district c ourt’s F eb. 17, 2012 orde r. 2II .

Gen eral ly, th is Co urt h as juri sd ic ti on on ly of ap pe al s fr om “ fin al de ci si on s of th e d is tri ctco urts .” 28 U.S.C. § 1 29 1. A fi na l d eci si on is typic al ly “ on e th at en ds th e li ti ga ti onon th e m eri ts an d l eav es no th in g fo r th e co urt t o d o b utex ecu te it s ju dg m en t.” W

or ld Fuel Co rp . v. Geithn er , 56 8 F .3d13 45 , 13 48 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o mit te d) . Pos tju dg m en t d eci si on s ar e li ke wis e subjec t t o the tes t o f fi na li ty. Dela ne y's Inc . v. Ill . Uni on Ins . Co. , 89 4 F .2d13 00 , 13 04 (11 th Cir . 19 90 ). Howev er, i n p os tju dg m en t p ro ceed in gs , su ch as a tt orne y fee d is pu te s, “ th e m ean in g o f a ‘fin al de ci si on ’ is les s cl ear b ecau se th e pr oc eed in gs ne ces sa ril y

fol lo w a fin al jud gm en t.” Tho mas v. Blu e Cr os s & Blu e Sh ie ld Ass 'n , 59 4 F .3d82 3, 8 29 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). Even so , “ [w]e ‘ tre atth e po st jud gm en t p ro ceed in g a s a f ree- st an di ng li ti ga ti on , ineffe cttre at in g t he fin al jud gm en t as th e fi rs t ra th er tha n t he las t o rd er i n t he cas e.’” Id
. (qu ot in g Ass ’n of CmtyOrg s. f or Refo rm No w v. Il l. Sta te Bd. o f El ect io ns , 75 F.3d30 4, 3 06 (7t h Ci r. 19 96 )). Thu s, an ord er i s d eem edfin al if i t d is po se s o f al l the is su es rai se d i n th e m ot io n t ha t i ni ti al ly spa rk edth e p os tju dg m en t p ro ceed in gs . Se e Th oma s , 59 4 F.3 d a t 8 29 ; So lis v. C

ur re nt Dev. Co rp . , 55 7 F .3d77 2, 7 76 (7t h C ir. 2 00 9) .

II I. Inth e in st an t ca se , Mayer’ s fe e m ot io n i ni ti at edth e p os tju dg m en t 3pr oc eed in gs , andth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t re so lv e Ma y er’s fee m ot io n wh enit

de ni edW al l St reetEqu it y an d West ’s fee m ot io n. Ev enif the m ot io ns ha d b een fil edinrev ers e o rd er, thi s co urt wo ul d s ti ll lac k app el la te juri sd ic ti on be cau se th e ot he r fee m ot io n wo ul d re m ai n o ut st an di ng . Onl y if apo st jud gm en t o rd er i s

“ ap pa ren tl y

th e la stord er t o b e en te redinth e act io n” is itfin al an d app eal ab le . Dela ne y’s Inc
. , 89 4 F .2dat 1 30 4 (quo ti ng 9 J . L U C A S E T A L ., M O O R E ’ S F E D E R A L P R A C T IC E ¶ 1 00 .14 [1 ], at 1 96 -9 7 (2 d e d. 1 98 8) ). Forus to ho ldot he rwis e in vi te s li ti ga nt s t o app eal ev ery at to rn ey ’s fee o rd er, ev enif o th er re qu es ts rem ai n ou ts ta nd in g, re su lt in g i n apro li fera ti on of p ie cem eal or r ep et it io us ap pe al s. Se e So lis , 55 7 F .3dat 7 76 . Furt he rm or e, ou r ru li ng is co ns is te ntwith t he Supr em e Co urt’s p ract ic al co ns tru ct io n o f 28 U.S.C. § 1 29 1. Se e Co he n v . Bene fi ci al Indus . Lo an Co rp ., 33 7 U.S. 5 41 , 54 6, 6 8 S . Ct. 1 22 1, 1 22 5 (1 94 9) (“ The effe ctof [ § 12 91 ] is to di sa ll ow ap pe al fro m an y de ci si on whi ch is . . . in co m pl et e,” an d § 12 91 's “ pu rp os e is to co m bi ne inon e rev ie w all st ag es of t he pro ceed in g t ha t effe ct iv el y

m ay be rev ie wedan d c orrect edif a ndwhen fin al jud gm en t re su lt s.”) .

IV. Fo r th e afo rem en ti on edreas on s, we d is m is s Wall Str eetEqu it y an d West ’s ap pe al forlac k o f juri sd ic ti on . APPEAL DISMI SSED. 4