Court Opinion

ID: 9914950
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-03 20:00:58.127009+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:15:52.779456
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-11982   Document: 31-1    Date Filed: 01/03/2024   Page: 1 of 5

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                         ____________________

                              No. 23-11982
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       JERDO ROBERT NEWSON,
                             Plaintiﬀ-ThirdParty Defendant-Appellant,
       ATLANTIC SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
                                                  ThirdParty Plaintiﬀ,
       versus
       EVA HERNANDEZ,
       BADGER STATE WESTERN INC,

                         Defendants-ThirdParty Defendants-Appellees,

       JON LANCE GARBER, et al.,
USCA11 Case: 23-11982      Document: 31-1     Date Filed: 01/03/2024     Page: 2 of 5

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 23-11982

                                                                Defendants.

                            ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Georgia
                     D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cv-02133-CAP
                           ____________________

       Before JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               We issued jurisdictional questions asking the parties to ad-
       dress whether the relevant pleadings sufficiently established the
       district court’s diversity jurisdiction, whether the district court’s
       certification of a final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Proce-
       dure 54(b) was proper, and several other jurisdictional issues. We
       then remanded this case to the district court for the limited purpose
       of determining whether diversity jurisdiction existed in the first in-
       stance. On remand, the district court concluded that the parties
       were completely diverse and that it thus had diversity jurisdiction.
       We now turn to the remaining jurisdictional issues.
              Appellant Jerdo Robert Newson seeks review of the district
       court’s March 9, 2023 order entering summary judgment in favor
       of Eva Hernandez and Badger State Western, Inc., which it certi-
       fied for immediate appellate review under Rule 54(b). Following
       issuance of that order, Newson settled his claims against remaining
       defendants Jon Lance Garner and KeHE Enterprises, LLC, and the
USCA11 Case: 23-11982      Document: 31-1     Date Filed: 01/03/2024     Page: 3 of 5

       23-11982               Opinion of the Court                         3

       district court dismissed those claims with prejudice. The sole re-
       maining claim is third-party plaintiff Atlantic Specialty Insurance
       Company’s (“Atlantic”) cross-claim against Newson. While those
       parties have agreed to a resolution of the claim, a settlement has
       not been finalized, and neither the parties nor the district court
       have dismissed the cross-claim.
               We conclude that the district court did not properly certify
       its March 9, 2023 order for immediate review under Rule 54(b).
       Specifically, the district court abused its discretion in determining
       that there was “no just reason for delay.” See Lloyd Noland Found.,
       Inc. v. Tenet Health Care Corp., 483 F.3d 773, 777 (11th Cir. 2007)
       (holding that to certify a case for immediate appeal under Rule
       54(b), a district court must determine, inter alia, that there is “no
       just reason for delay”).
              As a preliminary matter, the district court did not provide
       any reasoning or explanation for its certification decision other
       than noting that no issues remained for its resolution. It simply
       stated, summarily, that there was no just reason for delay. We
       therefore accord no deference to the district court’s certification.
       See Ebrahimi v. City of Huntsville Bd. of Educ., 114 F.3d 162, 166-67
       (11th Cir. 1997); see also Scott v. Advanced Pharm. Consultants, Inc.,
       84 F.4th 952, 962 (11th Cir. 2023) (noting that when a district court
       merely concludes, without further explanation, that there is no just
       reason for delay, “th[at] alone offers sufficient reason to find the
       Rule 54(b) certification improper”).
USCA11 Case: 23-11982      Document: 31-1      Date Filed: 01/03/2024     Page: 4 of 5

       4                      Opinion of the Court                  23-11982

               Here, the “special circumstances” we have identified as war-
       ranting departure from the historic federal policy against piece-
       meal appeals are not present. See Doe #1 v. Red Roof Inns, Inc.,
       21 F.4th 714, 722-23 (11th Cir. 2021); Peden v. Stephens, 50 F.4th 972,
       978-79 (11th Cir. 2022). The Rule 54(b) certification did not occur
       at an early stage in the litigation, but at the very end, when there
       are essentially no substantive proceedings remaining. There is no
       substantial discovery to be had, and all liability issues appear to be
       resolved. Nor are there a particularly large number of defendants
       in this action—there were four—and, as mentioned above, the two
       not involved in the summary judgment proceedings were previ-
       ously dismissed.
              Further, neither the parties nor the district court have iden-
       tified any particular dangers of hardship or injustice associated
       with delaying appellate review until final resolution of the action,
       and our review of the record reveals no obvious reason to permit
       an immediate appeal at this time. See Peden, 50 F.4th at 978 (ex-
       plaining that Rule 54(b) certification should be limited to “instances
       in which immediate appeal would alleviate some particular danger
       of hardship or injustice associated with delay”). It instead appears
       that delaying appellate review until Atlantic’s cross-claim against
       Newson is finally resolved will cause nothing more than inconven-
       ience to the parties, which is not the type of circumstance that war-
       rants Rule 54(b) certification.
            For these reasons, the district court’s Rule 54(b) certification
       was improper. Because the district court has still not finally
USCA11 Case: 23-11982      Document: 31-1     Date Filed: 01/03/2024     Page: 5 of 5

       23-11982               Opinion of the Court                         5

       resolved all claims against all parties in this action, the district
       court’s March 9, 2023 order is not final or immediately appealable.
       See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Supreme Fuels Trading FZE v. Sargeant, 689 F.3d
       1244, 1246 (11th Cir. 2012) (explaining that an order disposing of
       fewer than all claims against all parties to an action is not final or
       immediately appealable absent certification under Rule 54(b)). We
       thus lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal and need not consider
       the remaining jurisdictional issues.
               Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdic-
       tion.