Court Opinion

ID: 9411819
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-28 00:01:08.85874+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:14.559549
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-40616         Document: 00516836551             Page: 1     Date Filed: 07/27/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                                                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                       Fifth Circuit

                                             FILED
                                      ____________
                                                                                 July 27, 2023
                                       No. 22-40616                              Lyle W. Cayce
                                      ____________                                    Clerk

   Kevin Clay Lytle,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   CEM Insurance Company, Incorporated,

                                                Defendant—Appellee.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Southern District of Texas
                                USDC No. 1:20-CV-186
                      ______________________________

   Before Haynes and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges, and Saldaña,
   District Judge. *
   Per Curiam: †
          This case began in a state district court involving Kevin Lytle’s claims
   arising from damage to his truck.             He originally sued Exeter Finance
   Corporation and Pronto Insurance Agencies, LP, which both answered the
   case (although Lytle settled and then nonsuited his claims against Exeter
          _____________________
          *
             United States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas, sitting by
   designation.
          †
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40616        Document: 00516836551             Page: 2      Date Filed: 07/27/2023

                                         No. 22-40616

   while still in state court), and later sued CEM Insurance Company, which
   removed the case. Pronto was never dismissed. In the original petition filed
   in state court, it was called Pronto Insurance Agencies, LP, and was later
   referred to as Pronto Insurance Company in amended petitions. Pronto was
   named on the docket in the federal court and continued to be referenced in
   the case. Ultimately, CEM Insurance moved for summary judgment, which
   the district court granted. Notably, the district court, seemingly recognizing
   that another party was still in the case, did not enter a final judgment.
   Nonetheless, Lytle filed this appeal regarding only the summary judgment in
   favor of CEM Insurance. 1
           Although CEM Insurance contends that Pronto Insurance Company
   was a different defendant that was never served, at oral argument its counsel
   admitted it was not aware of a separate company with that name, and Lytle’s
   counsel admitted it was a misnomer. See In re Greater Hous. Orthopaedic
   Specialists, Inc., 295 S.W.3d 323, 325–26 (Tex. 2009) (explaining that the
   naming of the right party incorrectly is a misnomer, and the petition remains
   effective). Because a party remains in the case, and the district court did not
   direct entry of final judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
   54(b), the August 9, 2022 order granting CEM Insurance’s motion for
   summary judgment is not a “final decision” for purposes of 28 U.S.C.
   § 1291. Thus, we lack appellate jurisdiction over this case, which remains
   pending in the district court. See Borne v. A & P Boat Rentals No. 4, Inc., 755
   F.2d 1131, 1133 (5th Cir. 1985). Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED
   for want of jurisdiction.

           _____________________
           1
            Notably, the notice of appeal listed the case name as “Kevin Clay Lytle v. Pronto
   Insurance Agencies, LP and Exeter Finance Corporation.” Because the appeal addressed
   only Lytle and CEM Insurance, the Clerk’s Office set the case title used above.

                                               2