Court Opinion

ID: 9914952
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-03 20:01:07.860817+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:15:43.771291
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-12698    Document: 25-1      Date Filed: 01/03/2024   Page: 1 of 4

                                                   [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                           ____________________

                                 No. 23-12698
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

       JEREMY SORENSON, et al.,
       individuals,
                                                               Plaintiﬀs,
       ADAM MCLEAN,
       an individual,
       JAMES DOYLE,
       an individual, on behalf of themselves
       and all others similarly situated,
                                                    Plaintiﬀs-Appellants,
       versus
       DELTA AIR LINES INC.,
USCA11 Case: 23-12698      Document: 25-1     Date Filed: 01/03/2024     Page: 2 of 4

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 23-12698

                                                       Defendant-Appellee.

                            ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Georgia
                     D.C. Docket No. 1:17-cv-00541-ELR
                           ____________________

       Before WILSON, GRANT, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Upon review of the record and the parties’ responses to the
       jurisdictional questions, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction over
       this appeal.
              Appellants Adam McLean and James Doyle, individually and
       on behalf of all others similarly situated, challenge the district
       court’s March 31, 2023 order granting in part defendant Delta Air
       Lines, Inc.’s (“Delta”) motion for summary judgment. The March
       31 order dismissed all claims asserted by plaintiffs Jeremy Sorenson,
       Randal Reep, McLean, and Doyle, leaving only plaintiff Randal
       Smith’s discrimination claim outstanding.
              On August 30, 2023, a stipulation of dismissal pursuant to
       Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) that purported to dis-
       miss all of Smith’s claims with prejudice was filed in the district
       court. The parties do not dispute that the stipulation was filed and
       signed on behalf of only Smith and Delta, as reflected on the
USCA11 Case: 23-12698      Document: 25-1       Date Filed: 01/03/2024     Page: 3 of 4

       23-12698                Opinion of the Court                          3

       document itself. On September 8, 2023, the clerk entered a judg-
       ment in favor of Delta on all claims, except Smith’s discrimination
       claim and stated that Sorenson, Reep, Doyle, and McLean were dis-
       missed from the action.
               Because the August 30, 2023 stipulation of dismissal was
       signed by fewer than all parties who had appeared in the litigation,
       the stipulation was ineffective, and Smith’s discrimination claim re-
       mains pending before the district court. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
       41(a)(1)(A)(ii) (providing that a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an
       action by filing “a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who
       have appeared”); City of Jacksonville v. Jacksonville Hosp. Holdings,
       L.P., 82 F.4th 1031, 1034 (11th Cir. 2023) (holding that Rule
       41(a)(1)(A)(ii)’s signature requirement applies to all parties, includ-
       ing those who were previously removed from the action). Addi-
       tionally, the district court did not certify its March 31, 2023 order
       for immediate review pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
       54(b). See Supreme Fuels Trading FZE v. Sargeant, 689 F.3d 1244, 1246
       (11th Cir. 2012) (providing that an order that disposes of fewer than
       all claims against all parties to an action is not final or immediately
       appealable absent certification by the district court pursuant to
       Rule 54(b)). Thus, we lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal. See
       28 U.S.C. § 1291; Acheron Cap., Ltd. v. Mukamal, 22 F.4th 979, 986
       (11th Cir. 2022) (“A final decision is typically one that ends the liti-
       gation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but ex-
       ecute its judgment.” (quotation marks omitted)).
USCA11 Case: 23-12698         Document: 25-1         Date Filed: 01/03/2024          Page: 4 of 4

       4                          Opinion of the Court                        23-12698

                 Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdic-
       tion. 1

       1 We also asked the parties to address whether the August 30, 2023 stipulation

       of dismissal was valid, given that it only dismissed one of the plaintiff’s claims
       against the defendant. Because we find that we lack jurisdiction over the ap-
       peal because the stipulation was signed by fewer than all parties that appeared
       in the action, we express no opinion regarding whether the stipulation was
       also invalid because it only dismissed one of the plaintiff’s claims against the
       defendant.