Court Opinion

ID: 9404154
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-22 15:01:17.002599+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:12.435647
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-11396    Document: 13-1     Date Filed: 06/22/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-11396
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       BULENT COSGUN,
                                                     Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       SEABOURN CRUISE LINE LIMITED INC.,
       a foreign corporation,

                                                   Defendant-Appellee.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                    D.C. Docket No. 0:21-cv-61378-RKA
USCA11 Case: 23-11396      Document: 13-1      Date Filed: 06/22/2023     Page: 2 of 3

       2                      Opinion of the Court                  23-11396

                            ____________________

       Before JILL PRYOR, GRANT, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic-
       tion. Bulent Cosgun appeals from the district court’s order grant-
       ing Seabourn Cruise Line’s motion to compel arbitration, staying
       the case pending the completion of arbitration, and denying his
       motion to remand the case to state court. The order also directed
       the parties to routinely ﬁle joint reports on the status of the arbi-
       tration proceedings and, when the arbitration is completed, to ﬁle
       a joint notice describing the outcome of the arbitration
               An appeal may not be taken from an interlocutory order
       that compels arbitration and stays, rather than dismisses, the ac-
       tion. 9 U.S.C. § 16(b)(1)-(3); see Am. Express Fin. Advisors, Inc. v.
       Makarewicz, 122 F.3d 936, 939 & n.4 (11th Cir. 1997) (dismissing for
       lack of jurisdiction appeal of an order compelling arbitration, stay-
       ing proceedings, and administratively closing the case); Green Tree
       Fin. Corp.-Ala. V. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79, 87 n.2 (2000) (noting that if
       the district court had entered a stay, rather than a dismissal, the or-
       der would not have been appealable, per 9 U.S.C. § 16(b)(1)). The
       district court’s order here stayed, rather than dismissed, the case
       and expressly contemplated further proceedings. Cf. Martinez v.
       Carnival Corp., 744 F.3d 1240, 1244 (11th Cir. 2014) (noting that ad-
       ministratively closing a case is not the same as dismissing a case and
       ﬁnding that order compelling arbitration was immediately
USCA11 Case: 23-11396      Document: 13-1     Date Filed: 06/22/2023     Page: 3 of 3

       23-11396               Opinion of the Court                         3

       appealable where it “[n]otably . . . did not stay the proceedings, nor
       did it contemplate any further action on this case”). Additionally,
       the denial of Cosgun’s motion for remand is not ﬁnal or reviewable
       because the district court has not entered a ﬁnal judgment and the
       order denying the motion was not certiﬁed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
       § 1292(b). See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b); Woodard v. STP Corp., 170 F.3d
       1043, 1044 (11th Cir. 1999) (holding that the denial of a motion for
       remand of a case removed to federal court is not ﬁnal and cannot
       be reviewed unless certiﬁed pursuant to § 1292(b) or on appeal
       from a ﬁnal judgment).
              No petition for rehearing may be ﬁled unless it complies
       with the timing and other requirements of 11th Cir. R. 40-3 and all
       other applicable rules.