Case Name: J.S., K.S., C.S., and J.S., Minors via Guardian and Parent Scott Selmer, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. SAINT PAUL ACADEMY AND SUMMIT SCHOOL, Bryn Roberts, Timothy Rodd, Charles Zelle, Jill Romans, Cynthia Richter, Timothy Elchert, Anne Fiedler, Judy Johnson, Michael Thomford, and Thomas Hobert, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-02-12
Citations: 497 F. App'x 694
Docket Number: No. 12-2008
Parties: J.S., K.S., C.S., and J.S., Minors via Guardian and Parent Scott Selmer, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. SAINT PAUL ACADEMY AND SUMMIT SCHOOL, Bryn Roberts, Timothy Rodd, Charles Zelle, Jill Romans, Cynthia Richter, Timothy Elchert, Anne Fiedler, Judy Johnson, Michael Thomford, and Thomas Hobert, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before MURPHY, SMITH, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 497
Pages: 694–694

Head Matter:
J.S., K.S., C.S., and J.S., Minors via Guardian and Parent Scott Selmer, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. SAINT PAUL ACADEMY AND SUMMIT SCHOOL, Bryn Roberts, Timothy Rodd, Charles Zelle, Jill Romans, Cynthia Richter, Timothy Elchert, Anne Fiedler, Judy Johnson, Michael Thomford, and Thomas Hobert, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-2008.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 29, 2013.
Filed: Feb. 12, 2013.
Before MURPHY, SMITH, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Scott Selmer, on behalf of his four children (plaintiffs), purports to appeal the district court's dismissal of their civil complaint. Plaintiffs' July 2011 amended complaint named St. Paul Academy and Summit School (SPA), several individuals who were SPA employees or trustees (the SPA defendants), as well as Paul Applebaum, a parent of two children at SPA. The SPA defendants moved to dismiss; Applebaum was not a party to the motion. Applebaum neither answered nor filed any motion. The district court granted the SPA defendants' motion to dismiss.
As the district court did not address plaintiffs' claims against Applebaum, those claims remain pending, and this appeal is premature. See Bullock v. Baptist Mem'l Hosp., 817 F.2d 58, 59 (8th Cir.1987) (order dismissing complaint as to fewer than all defendants is not "final order"); Ruffolo v. Oppenheimer & Co., Inc., 949 F.2d 33, 34-36 (2d Cir.1991) (order granting one defendant's motion to dismiss was not final appealable decision where other defendant neither answered nor moved to dismiss); see also Huggins v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 566 F.3d 771, 773 (8th Cir.2009) (where it appears jurisdiction is lacking, appellate courts are obligated to consider sua sponte jurisdictional issues). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal and remand to the district court for consideration of plaintiffs' claims against Applebaum.