Court Opinion

ID: 9962087
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-22 17:01:06.92834+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:49.304109
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-13058       Document: 38-1      Date Filed: 04/22/2024   Page: 1 of 5

                                                      [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                                ____________________

                                     No. 22-13058
                                Non-Argument Calendar
                                ____________________

       LAN LI,
       an individual, et al.,
                                             Plaintiﬀs-Counter Defendants,
       versus
       JOSEPH WALSH,

                                         Defendant-Third Party Defendant,

       JOSEPH WALSH, JR. et al.,

                                                                Defendants,
USCA11 Case: 22-13058    Document: 38-1       Date Filed: 04/22/2024   Page: 2 of 5

       2                    Opinion of the Court                 22-13058

       SOUTH ATLANTIC REGIONAL CENTER, LLC
       a Florida Limited Liability Company,

                                          Defendant-Counter Claimant,

       KK-PB FINANCIAL, LLC,
       a Florida Limited Liability Company,

                                               Defendant-Cross Claimant-
                                                              Appellant,

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                    D.C. Docket No. 9:16-cv-81871-KAM
                          ____________________

       Before GRANT, BRASHER, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              This case presents the second time that KK-PB Financial,
       LLC appeals the district court’s summary judgment order on its
       crossclaims against Leslie Robert Evans and his law ﬁrm, Leslie
       Robert Evans & Associates, P.A. The ﬁrst time, we dismissed KK-
       PB’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the summary judgment
       order was not ﬁnal as there were pending claims against the Evans
USCA11 Case: 22-13058       Document: 38-1       Date Filed: 04/22/2024       Page: 3 of 5

       22-13058                 Opinion of the Court                            3

       defendants and the other defendants, and the district court never
       certiﬁed the order for immediate review under Federal Rule of
       Civil Procedure 54(b). Li v. Walsh, No. 22-10864, 2022 WL 4230212,
       at *1 (11th Cir. July 6, 2022). Now back on appeal, the district court
       has certiﬁed its order for immediate appeal under Rule 54(b). But
       because we ﬁnd that its Rule 54(b) certiﬁcation was an abuse of
       discretion, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
               This Court generally has jurisdiction to review district court
       judgments that resolve “conclusively the substance of all claims,
       rights, and liabilities of all parties to an action.” Sanchez v. Disc. Rock
       & Sand, Inc., 84 F.4th 1283, 1291 (11th Cir. 2023) (emphasis omitted)
       (quotation omitted). Rule 54(b), however, provides a narrow
       exception—a district court may enter partial ﬁnal judgment if it
       “expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay.” Fed.
       R. Civ. P. 54(b). Certiﬁcations under Rule 54(b) “must be reserved
       for the unusual case in which the costs and risks of multiplying the
       number of proceedings and of overcrowding the appellate docket
       are outbalanced by pressing needs of the litigants for an early and
       separate judgment as to some claims or parties.” Ebrahimi v. City of
       Huntsville Bd. of Educ., 114 F.3d 162, 166 (11th Cir. 1997) (quotation
       omitted).
              “A district court must follow a two-step analysis in
       determining whether a partial ﬁnal judgment may properly be
       certiﬁed under Rule 54(b).” Peden v. Stephens, 50 F.4th 972, 977 (11th
       Cir. 2022) (quotation omitted). First, it must determine that its
       decision is “an ultimate disposition of an individual claim entered
USCA11 Case: 22-13058         Document: 38-1          Date Filed: 04/22/2024          Page: 4 of 5

       4                          Opinion of the Court                         22-13058

       in the course of a multiple claims action,” and that it is a “decision
       upon a cognizable claim for relief.” Id. (quotation omitted). Second,
       the court must “determine that there is no just reason for delay.”
       Id. We review the ﬁrst step of the analysis de novo, and the second
       for abuse of discretion. Id. at 976–77.
               We hold that the district court erred by concluding that
       there was “no just reason for delay” in this case. The district court
       never explained its reasoning for its Rule 54(b) certiﬁcation, so “we
       cannot defer to the district court determination and must assess
       whether any obvious reasons support” Rule 54(b) certiﬁcation.
       Ebrahimi, 114 F.3d at 167. Here, there are no special circumstances
       justifying immediate appeal. The underlying suit is still ongoing,
       and while the claims against KK-PB may have been settled and
       dismissed, the claims against the Evans defendants remain
       pending. 1 Those pending claims are also suﬃciently related to the
       crossclaims on appeal: both concern whether the Evans defendants
       improperly failed to timely record KK-PB’s mortgage. Still, KK-PB
       and the Evans defendants argue that Rule 54(b) certiﬁcation is
       warranted because the underlying suit is complicated and “will
       take a long time to adjudicate.” But lengthy litigation, although
       perhaps inconvenient, is not enough—there must be some

       1 The Evans defendants and the plaintiffs in the underlying lawsuit filed joint

       stipulations of dismissal, stating that the claims against the Evans defendants
       had been settled. But the stipulations were not signed by all parties, and the
       district court never entered an order addressing those stipulations. These
       attempts to dismiss were thus ineffective. See City of Jacksonville v. Jacksonville
       Hosp. Holdings, L.P., 82 F.4th 1031, 1034, 1039 (11th Cir. 2023).
USCA11 Case: 22-13058     Document: 38-1     Date Filed: 04/22/2024    Page: 5 of 5

       22-13058              Opinion of the Court                        5

       indication that this would diminish a party’s ability to recover, or
       that there is some other “pressing need for an early and separate
       judgment.” Peden, 50 F.4th at 979 (alteration adopted) (quotation
       omitted). Here, there is no such indication. We accordingly
       DISMISS for lack of jurisdiction.