Court Opinion

ID: 9961729
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-19 17:00:42.1319+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:45.973434
License: Public Domain

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                     FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                          _____________

                               No. 22-2317
                              _____________

                     JJ BADA OPERATING CORP**

                                     v.

DOKDOYA INC; TAEJUNG KIM; HU LIN CUI; JOHN DOES and JANE DOES 1
                          Through 5

                          MICHAEL S. KIMM,*
                                         Appellant

                  (*Pursuant to Rule 12(a), Fed. R. App. P.)

          (**Dismissed Pursuant to Court Order dated 09/01/2022)
                            _____________

              On Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the District of New Jersey
                     (D.C. Civil No. 2-19-cv-09194)
                  District Judge: Honorable Esther Salas
                              _____________

            Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
                            March 28, 2024
                            _____________

        Before: RESTREPO, MATEY, and MCKEE, Circuit Judges

                          (Filed: April 19, 2024)
                                      _____________

                                        OPINION *
                                      _____________

MATEY, Circuit Judge.

       Appellant Michael Kimm appeals the District Court’s order imposing attorneys’

fees, but the parties stipulated to a dismissal of the matter before the District Court. To

the extent the dismissal does not moot the pending appeal, we lack jurisdiction. Congress

has granted this court jurisdiction over “appeals from all final decisions of the district

courts.” 28 U.S.C. § 1291. A final decision under this statute is one that “ends the

litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.”

Weber v. McGrogan, 939 F.3d 232, 236 (3d Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). An order imposing monetary sanctions is not a final decision unless it

specifies the amount that the sanctioned party must pay. See Napier v. Thirty or More

Unidentified Fed. Agents, Emps., or Officers, 855 F.2d 1080, 1089 (3d Cir. 1988); In re

Jeannette Corp., 832 F.2d 43, 45 (3d Cir. 1987). The District Court’s order does not

specify an amount that Kimm must pay, so we lack jurisdiction to hear Kimm’s appeal.

       Accordingly, we will dismiss this appeal.

       This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7,
       *

does not constitute binding precedent.
                                              2