Court Opinion

ID: 9412827
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-01 18:02:07.224741+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:35.982985
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-10673    Document: 25-1     Date Filed: 08/01/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-10673
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       NU PAGAMENTOS S.A. - INSTITUICAO DE PAGAMENTO,
                                  Plaintiﬀ-Counter Defendant-Appellee,
       versus
       GEORGE DANIEL HUDSON, JR.,

                               Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Northern District of Georgia
                    D.C. Docket No. 2:21-cv-00069-RWS
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-10673      Document: 25-1       Date Filed: 08/01/2023      Page: 2 of 3

       2                       Opinion of the Court                   23-10673

       Before ROSENBAUM, BRANCH, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              The motion to dismiss the appeal filed by Nu Pagamentos
       S.A.–Instituição de Pagamento (“Appellee”) is GRANTED, and this
       appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
               Although the district court’s February 22, 2023, order re-
       solved George Daniel Hudson, Jr.’s counterclaims and several of
       Appellee’s claims, it did not end the litigation on the merits because
       Appellee’s false advertising and Anticybersquatting Consumer Pro-
       tection Act claims remain pending. Thus, because the district court
       did not certify the order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
       54(b), it is not final or otherwise immediately appealable. See 28
       U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Supreme Fuels Trading
       FZE v. Sargeant, 689 F.3d 1244, 1246 (11th Cir. 2012) (explaining that
       an order adjudicating fewer than all the claims in a suit, or adjudi-
       cating the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties, is not a
       final judgment from which an appeal may be taken, unless the dis-
       trict court properly certifies a judgment on fewer than all claims or
       parties as “final” under Rule 54(b)); CSX Transp., Inc. v. City of Gar-
       den City, 235 F.3d 1325, 1327 (11th Cir. 2000) (“A final decision is
       one which ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for
       the court to do but execute the judgment.”). Furthermore, despite
       Hudson’s assertions to the contrary, the Declaratory Judgment Act
       does not provide an exception to traditional finality requirements.
       See Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wetzel, 424 U.S. 737, 742-44 (1976) (ex-
       plaining that orders granting declaratory relief but leaving other
USCA11 Case: 23-10673      Document: 25-1      Date Filed: 08/01/2023     Page: 3 of 3

       23-10673               Opinion of the Court                          3

       requests for relief unresolved are not final within the meaning of
       § 1291).
              The February 22 order is also not appealable under 28 U.S.C.
       § 1292(a)(1). The order granted injunctive relief by prohibiting
       Hudson from using the “Nubank” trademark. See Alabama v. U.S.
       Army Corps of Eng’rs, 424 F.3d 1117, 1128 (11th Cir. 2005) (explaining
       that to be appealable under § 1292(a)(1), an order granting injunc-
       tive relief generally must be “(1) a clearly defined and understand-
       able directive by the court to act or to refrain from a particular ac-
       tion; and (2) enforceable through contempt, if disobeyed”). How-
       ever, the order is not effectively unreviewable on appeal from a
       final judgment because if this Court were to reverse the order,
       Hudson could resume use of the Nubank mark. See United States v.
       Bowman, 341 F.3d 1228, 1236 (11th Cir. 2003) (explaining that §
       1292(a)(1) allows appellate review of an interlocutory order if the or-
       der “(1) has the effect of an injunction; (2) has serious, perhaps ir-
       reparable consequences; and (3) is effectively unreviewable on ap-
       peal”); United States v. City of Hialeah, 140 F.3d 968, 973 (11th Cir.
       1998).