Court Opinion

ID: 9839014
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-11 14:00:37.383172+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:14.498583
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-11444    Document: 21-1     Date Filed: 09/11/2023   Page: 1 of 4

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-11444
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       TRANSWORLD FOOD SERVICE, LLC,
       a.k.a. Trans World Foods,
       EMILIA FOODS, LLC,
                                                   Plaintiﬀs-Appellants,
       versus
       NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

                                                   Defendant-Appellee.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Northern District of Georgia
USCA11 Case: 23-11444     Document: 21-1      Date Filed: 09/11/2023    Page: 2 of 4

       2                      Opinion of the Court                23-11444

                      D.C. Docket No. 1:19-cv-03772-SDG
                           ____________________

       Before BRANCH, LUCK, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Upon review of the record and the response to the jurisdic-
       tional question, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction over this ap-
       peal. TransWorld Food Service, LLC (“TransWorld Foods”) and
       Emilia Foods, LLC appeal the district court’s March 2022 order
       granting in part and denying in part defendant Nationwide Mutual
       Insurance Company’s (“Nationwide”) motion for summary judg-
       ment; the district court’s July 18, 2022 judgment; and the district
       court’s March 2023 order denying their motion to alter or amend
       the judgment.
               TransWorld Foods and Emilia Foods initially asserted 11
       claims against Nationwide related to its denial of various insurance
       claims. In March 2022, the district court granted Nationwide sum-
       mary judgment on counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 8. Following a trial, the
       jury rendered a verdict resolving counts 9 through 11. On August
       4, 2022, after judgment was entered, the parties filed a joint stipu-
       lation of dismissal regarding the remaining two counts, counts 5
       and 6. The district court took no action in response to the parties’
       joint stipulation.
             The parties’ joint stipulation of dismissal was invalid and did
       not serve to resolve the two remaining claims because it was an
       attempt to dismiss fewer than all of a party’s claims against another
USCA11 Case: 23-11444      Document: 21-1       Date Filed: 09/11/2023     Page: 3 of 4

       23-11444                Opinion of the Court                          3

       party. See Rosell v. VMSB, LLC, 67 F.4th 1141, 1143-44 (11th Cir.
       2023) (holding that there was no final decision in the action because
       the parties’ attempt to dismiss a single count under Federal Rule of
       Civil Procedure 41(a) was ineffective); Perry v. Schumacher Grp. of
       La., 891 F.3d 954, 958 (11th Cir. 2018) (holding that Rule 41(a)(1)(A)
       “may be used to dismiss only an ‘action’ in its entirety,” and that a
       stipulation which purports to dismiss a single claim in an action is
       invalid); see also Klay v. United Healthgroup, Inc., 376 F.3d 1092, 1106
       (11th Cir. 2004) (recognizing an exception under Rule 41(a) that
       “allows a plaintiff to dismiss all of his claims against a particular
       defendant”).
              Additionally, while the parties’ joint stipulation could be
       construed as a motion to amend the pleadings under Federal Rule
       of Civil Procedure 15, because the district court never took any ac-
       tion in response to it, the claims were not resolved. See Klay, 376
       F.3d at 1106 (noting that an ineffective dismissal of claims under
       Rule 41(a) could be construed as a motion to amend the pleadings
       under Rule 15); Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Further, the district court
       did not certify its judgment or orders under Federal Rule of Civil
       Procedure 54(b). See Supreme Fuels Trading FZE v. Sargeant, 689 F.3d
       1244, 1246 (11th Cir. 2012) (noting that an order that disposes of
       fewer than all claims against all parties to an action is not final or
       immediately appealable absent certification by the district court
       pursuant to Rule 54(b)).
             Therefore, the district court proceedings are not final, and
       we lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291
USCA11 Case: 23-11444      Document: 21-1      Date Filed: 09/11/2023     Page: 4 of 4

       4                      Opinion of the Court                  23-11444

       (providing jurisdiction to review only “final decisions of the district
       courts”); Acheron Cap., Ltd. v. Mukamal, 22 F.4th 979, 986 (11th Cir.
       2022) (“A final decision is typically one that ends the litigation on
       the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute its
       judgment.”).
               Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdic-
       tion.