Court Opinion

ID: 9907181
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-05 21:01:01.883981+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:56:37.049976
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-11810   Document: 20-1     Date Filed: 12/05/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                                 [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                         ____________________

                              No. 23-11810
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       CLEAN SWEEP PRODUCTS, INC.,
                                           Plaintiﬀ-Counter Defendant
                                                            Appellant,
       versus
       CHAMPIONS OF CALHOUN, LLC,

                                          Defendant-Counter Claimant
                                                            Appellee,

       CARPET CAPITAL FIRE PROTECTION, INC.,
USCA11 Case: 23-11810     Document: 20-1      Date Filed: 12/05/2023    Page: 2 of 3

       2                      Opinion of the Court                23-11810

                                                                Defendant.

                            ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Georgia
                     D.C. Docket No. 4:20-cv-00227-WMR
                           ____________________

       Before BRANCH, LUCK, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Upon review of the record and the parties’ joint response to
       the jurisdictional question, we agree with the parties that we lack
       jurisdiction over this appeal.
               Clean Sweep Products, Inc. (“Clean Sweep”) challenges the
       district court’s May 17, 2023 entry of summary judgment in favor
       of Champions of Calhoun, LLC (“Champions”). Clean Sweep’s
       second amended complaint asserted three claims against Champi-
       ons and Carpet Capital Fire Protection, Inc. (“Carpet Capital”).
       Champions’s answer asserted two counterclaims against Clean
       Sweep.
              The district court dismissed all claims against Carpet Capital
       and, in its May 17 order, resolved all claims against Champions.
       But the district court did not resolve, or even mention, Champi-
       ons’s counterclaims in any order.
USCA11 Case: 23-11810         Document: 20-1         Date Filed: 12/05/2023         Page: 3 of 3

       23-11810                   Opinion of the Court                                3

               We lack jurisdiction over the appeal because the district
       court’s May 17, 2023 order is not ﬁnal or otherwise immediately
       appealable. Champions’s counterclaims remain pending, and the
       district court did not certify its order for immediate review under
       Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (provid-
       ing jurisdiction to review only “ﬁnal decisions of the district
       courts”); Acheron Cap., Ltd. v. Mukamal, 22 F.4th 979, 986 (11th Cir.
       2022) (“A ﬁnal decision is typically one that ends the litigation on
       the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute its
       judgment.”); Supreme Fuels Trading FZE v. Sargeant, 689 F.3d 1244,
       1246 (11th Cir. 2012) (noting that an order that disposes of fewer
       than all claims against all parties to an action is not immediately
       appealable absent certiﬁcation pursuant to Rule 54(b)). Nor is the
       order eﬀectively unreviewable on appeal from a ﬁnal order resolv-
       ing the case on the merits. See Plaintiﬀ A v. Schair, 744 F.3d 1247,
       1252-53 (11th Cir. 2014) (explaining that a ruling that does not con-
       clude the litigation may be appealed under the collateral order doc-
       trine if it, inter alia, is “eﬀectively unreviewable on appeal from a
       ﬁnal judgment”).
                 Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdic-
       tion. 1

       1 We also asked the parties to address whether the relevant pleadings were

       sufficient to invoke the district court’s diversity jurisdiction in the first in-
       stance. Because we find that we lack jurisdiction over the appeal, we express
       no opinion regarding the adequacy of the allegations or evidence regarding
       diversity of citizenship and leave that determination to the district court.