Court Opinion

ID: 9365228
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-23 15:00:39.596931+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:43.905292
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 21-13510   Document: 58-1    Date Filed: 01/23/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                         ____________________

                              No. 21-13510
                         ____________________

       DITECH FINANCIAL, LLC,
                               Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellant,
       versus
       AIG SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,

                                                 Defendant-Appellee,

       STARR INDEMNITY & LIABILITY COMPANY,

                              Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellee.

                         ____________________
USCA11 Case: 21-13510       Document: 58-1       Date Filed: 01/23/2023       Page: 2 of 3

       2                        Opinion of the Court                    21-13510

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Middle District of Florida
                    D.C. Docket No. 8:20-cv-00409-WFJ-AEP
                            ____________________

       Before BRANCH and LUCK, Circuit Judges, and ANTOON,∗ District
       Judge.
       PER CURIAM:
               This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic-
       tion. Ditech Financial, LLC appeals from the district court’s Sep-
       tember 20, 2021 order granting the joint motion for summary judg-
       ment filed by AIG Specialty Insurance Company and Starr Indem-
       nity & Liability Company. However, that order did not resolve
       Starr’s counterclaim against Ditech for reformation of Starr’s insur-
       ance policy. Because the appealed order did not resolve all claims
       as to all parties, it is not final. And because the district court did
       not certify its ruling for immediate review under Federal Rule of
       Civil Procedure 54(b) or 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), the order is not an
       appealable interlocutory order either. We therefore lack jurisdic-
       tion over this appeal. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292(b); Fed. R. Civ.
       P. 54(b); Lloyd Noland Found., Inc. v. Tenet Health Care Corp.,
       483 F.3d 773, 777 (11th Cir. 2007) (“[A]n order adjudicating fewer
       than all the claims in a suit, or adjudicating the rights and liabilities

       ∗ The Honorable John Antoon II, United States District Judge for the Middle
       District of Florida, sitting by designation.
USCA11 Case: 21-13510     Document: 58-1     Date Filed: 01/23/2023    Page: 3 of 3

       21-13510               Opinion of the Court                       3

       of fewer than all the parties, is not a final judgment from which an
       appeal may be taken.”).
              The Joint Motion for Relinquishment of Jurisdiction, If Nec-
       essary, to Perfect Jurisdiction, is DENIED. No motion for recon-
       sideration may be filed unless it complies with the timing and other
       requirements of 11th Cir. R. 27-2 and all other applicable rules.