Court Opinion

ID: 9925455
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-19 21:01:33.661587+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:43.971765
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-13500   Document: 19-1     Date Filed: 01/19/2024   Page: 1 of 3

                                                 [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                           ____________________

                                No. 23-13500
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

       TOMMY D. LAY, II,
                                                    Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       BRYON DAWSON,
                                                              Plaintiﬀ,
       versus
       STORM SMART BUILDING SYSTEMS, INC.,

                                                  Defendant-Appellee.

                           ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-13500       Document: 19-1       Date Filed: 01/19/2024      Page: 2 of 3

       2                       Opinion of the Court                    23-13500

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Middle District of Florida
                     D.C. Docket No. 2:20-cv-00746-NPM
                           ____________________

       Before WILSON, BRANCH, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Tommy D. Lay, II, proceeding pro se, appeals from the dis-
       trict court’s September 22, 2023, order granting his counsel’s mo-
       tion to withdraw. A jurisdictional question (“JQ”) asked the parties
       to address the nature of our jurisdiction over this appeal, but the
       appellee did not respond to the JQ. Upon review of Lay’s response
       to the JQ and the record, we DISMISS this appeal for lack of juris-
       diction.
              The September 22 order is not final because all claims
       against Storm Smart Building Systems, Inc. have not been resolved.
       See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; CSX Transp. Inc. v. City of Garden City, 235 F.3d
       1325, 1327 (11th Cir. 2000). The February 20, 2023, stipulation of
       voluntary dismissal; the February 24, 2023, order recognizing that
       stipulation; and the June 20, 2023, stipulation of voluntary dismissal
       are all invalid because they each seek to dismiss a single claim
       against Storm Smart rather than the entire action. See Fed. R. Civ.
       P. 41(a); Esteva v. Ubs Fin. Servs. Inc. (In re Esteva), 60 F.4th 664, 675
       (11th Cir. 2023); Rosell v. VMSB, LLC., 67 F.4th 1141, 1144 (11th Cir.
       2023). And neither stipulation was signed by all parties who had
USCA11 Case: 23-13500      Document: 19-1      Date Filed: 01/19/2024     Page: 3 of 3

       23-13500               Opinion of the Court                          3

       appeared in the action. See City of Jacksonville v. Jacksonville Hospi-
       tality Holdings, L.P., 82 F.4th 1031, 1038-39 (11th Cir. 2023).
               Contrary to Lay’s contentions, the order granting counsel’s
       motion to withdraw is not an immediately appealable injunctive
       order. See § 1292(a)(1); Alabama v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 424
       F.3d 1117, 1128 (11th Cir. 2005); United States v. Bowman, 341 F.3d
       1228, 1236 (11th Cir. 2003). Nor is it immediately appealable under
       28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) or the collateral order doctrine. Cf. Richardson-
       Merrell, Inc. v. Koller, 472 U.S. 424, 440 (1985) (concluding that “or-
       ders disqualifying counsel in a civil case are not collateral orders
       subject to immediate appeal”); 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (requiring a dis-
       trict judge to certify, in writing, an order for immediate appeal un-
       der this subsection).
              All pending motions are DENIED as moot.