Opinion ID: 2686686
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: The McKinseys’ appeal challenges the district court’s denial of their motion for default judgment and its dismissal under Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b) of the claims in -4- their amended complaint. Ms. McKinsey also appeals the district court’s denial of her motion for TRO and preliminary injunction. With the sole exception of the district court’s denial of Ms. McKinsey’s request for a preliminary injunction, we lack appellate jurisdiction to review the McKinseys’ challenges. Generally, this court has jurisdiction to review only the final decisions of a district court. Miller v. Basic Research, LLC, 750 F.3d 1173, 1175 (10th Cir. 2014) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1291). “A final judgment is one that terminates all matters as to all parties and causes of action.” Utah v. Norton, 396 F.3d 1281, 1286 (10th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the district court’s order did not resolve all of the claims against GMAC; it stayed those claims that were subject to the bankruptcy automatic stay. 3 An otherwise non-final order does not become final and appealable because the district court administratively closed the case after issuing the order. Crystal Clear Commc’ns, Inc. v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 415 F.3d 1171, 1176 (10th Cir. 2005); see also Freeman v. Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC, 709 F.3d 240, 247 (3d Cir. 2013) (same, explaining that administrative closings only remove a case from the court’s active docket). Thus, we lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s ruling on the Appellees’ motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b). We also lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s denial of the McKinseys’ motion for default 3 Furthermore, if the district court denied the McKinseys’ Rule 41(a) motion as to all defendants, then none of the claims against the remaining defendants have been resolved. -5- judgment at this interlocutory stage. See Grandbouche v. Clancy, 825 F.2d 1463, 1468 (10th Cir. 1987) (denial of motion for default judgment is a non-final interlocutory order). We do have appellate jurisdiction, however, to review the district court’s denial of Ms. McKinsey’s motion for injunctive relief because 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) permits appellate review of district court orders “granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions.” Generally, the denial of a temporary restraining order is not appealable. Populist Party v. Herschler, 746 F.2d 656, 661 n.2 (10th Cir. 1984) (per curiam). But here it is appealable because “the order in reality operate[d] as [the denial of] a preliminary injunction.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted); § 1292(a)(1).