Court Opinion

ID: 9931110
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-08 16:02:26.160832+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:16:20.494050
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-12022   Document: 28-1    Date Filed: 02/08/2024   Page: 1 of 3

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                         ____________________

                              No. 23-12022
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       AMANALI BABWARI,
                                                    Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY,

                                                Defendant-Appellant,

       AYRS FOOD & FUEL LLC, et al.,

                                                          Defendants.

                         ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-12022      Document: 28-1     Date Filed: 02/08/2024     Page: 2 of 3

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 23-12022

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Alabama
                      D.C. Docket No. 2:21-cv-00895-RDP
                           ____________________

       Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              We issued jurisdictional questions (“JQs”) about (1) the dis-
       trict court’s subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332,
       given that original plaintiff Amanali Babwari and original defend-
       ants A.Y.R.S. Food & Fuel, LLC (“A.Y.R.S.”), Ramzan Jiwani, and
       Younus Saleh are all alleged to be citizens of Alabama, and the rec-
       ord did not reflect the realignment of the parties; and (2) whether
       the district court’s May 15, 2023 order that defendant State Farm
       Fire and Casualty Company (“State Farm”) challenges on appeal is
       final or immediately appealable.
               In response to the JQs, Babwari asserts that we may lack ju-
       risdiction over the appeal because the district court’s May 15, 2023
       order did not determine or specify the means for determining the
       amount of damages and interest to which he is entitled. Addition-
       ally, following our JQs, State Farm filed a motion before the district
       court to realign Jiwani, Saleh, and A.Y.R.S. as plaintiffs, which the
       district court granted.
              The district court’s order granting State Farm’s motion for
       realignment of the parties confirmed that the district court had sub-
       ject matter jurisdiction in the first instance. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
USCA11 Case: 23-12022         Document: 28-1        Date Filed: 02/08/2024         Page: 3 of 3

       23-12022                  Opinion of the Court                                3

               We agree with Babwari that we lack jurisdiction over the ap-
       peal because the district court’s May 15, 2023 order is not ﬁnal or
       otherwise immediately appealable. The May 15 order is silent as to
       an award of any prejudgment interest, including the prejudgment
       interest rate and the date from which any prejudgment interest
       would accrue. See U.S. S.E.C. v. Carrillo, 325 F.3d 1268, 1272-74 (11th
       Cir. 2003) (noting that the calculation of prejudgment interest can
       be ministerial, but if the judgment amount, the prejudgment inter-
       est rate, or the date from which prejudgment interest accrues is
       unclear, the calculation of prejudgment interest is no longer a min-
       isterial act and the court’s order is not ﬁnal); Osterneck v. Ernst &
       Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 176 n.3 (1989) (indicating that prejudgment
       interest is part of the “merits” of a case). Additionally, the May 15
       order is not immediately reviewable under the collateral order doc-
       trine because it is not eﬀectively unreviewable on appeal from a
       ﬁnal judgment. See Plaintiﬀ A v. Schair, 744 F.3d 1247, 1253 (11th
       Cir. 2014) (explaining that a ruling that does not conclude the liti-
       gation may be appealed under the collateral order doctrine if it,
       inter alia, is “eﬀectively unreviewable on appeal from a ﬁnal judg-
       ment”).
                 Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdic-
       tion. 1

       1 We also asked the parties to address whether the district court’s May 15, 2023

       order was final given that it did not dispose of all the claims against all the
       parties. Because we find that we lack jurisdiction over the appeal due to the
       pending issue of damages, we express no opinion on the other finality issue.