Court Opinion

ID: 9892058
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-20 14:00:44.908157+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:50:02.796628
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-2002   Document: 7      Page: 1   Filed: 10/20/2023

          NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

                   SABINSA CORP.,
                    Plaintiff-Appellee

                            v.

                 HERBAKRAFT, INC.,
                     Defendant

         PRAKRUTI PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,
               Defendant-Appellant
              ______________________

                       2023-2002
                 ______________________

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey in No. 1:14-cv-04738-RBK-SAK,
Senior Judge Robert B. Kugler.
                ______________________

   Before DYK, CUNNINGHAM, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
                       ORDER
     Following this court’s show cause order directing the
parties to address whether this appeal should be dismissed
for lack of jurisdiction, we dismiss.
    The district court sanctioned Prakruti Products PVT.
Ltd. (“Prakruti”) for discovery misconduct. The court
Case: 23-2002      Document: 7    Page: 2    Filed: 10/20/2023

2                          SABINSA CORP. v. HERBAKRAFT, INC.

thereafter held Prakruti in “civil contempt” for failing to
comply with the sanctions order, directed the clerk of court
to enter default, and scheduled briefing on default judg-
ment. Prakruti filed this appeal, even though the motion
for default judgment remains pending.
     In general, we only have jurisdiction to review a “final
decision” from district court, 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1)—one
that “ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing
for the court to do but execute the judgment.” Catlin v.
United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233 (1945). Here, Prakruti
does not appeal from such a decision. “[C]ivil contempt or-
ders [against parties] are not final judgments, even when a
fine is assessed,” Entegris, Inc. v. Pall Corp., 490 F.3d 1340,
1347–48 (Fed. Cir. 2007), and “the entry of default is an
‘interlocutory act and, as such, a non-final order.’” City of
New York v. Mickalis Pawn Shop, LLC, 645 F.3d 114, 128
n.15 (2d Cir. 2011) (citation omitted).
    Accordingly,
    IT IS ORDERED THAT:
    (1) The appeal is dismissed.
    (2) Each party shall bear its own costs.
                                          FOR THE COURT

 October 20, 2023                         /s/ Jarrett B. Perlow
      Date                                Jarrett B. Perlow
                                          Clerk of Court