Court Opinion

ID: 9952595
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-20 14:02:34.449087+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:41:20.057726
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-13599   Document: 18-1    Date Filed: 03/20/2024   Page: 1 of 4

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                         ____________________

                              No. 23-13599
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       REINIER ANGULO,
                                                   Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       WORKHORSE GROUP, INC. et al.,

                                                          Defendants,

       THE SHYFT GROUP USA, INC.,

                                                 Defendant-Appellee,
USCA11 Case: 23-13599      Document: 18-1     Date Filed: 03/20/2024     Page: 2 of 4

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 23-13599

       UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.,

                                                     Respondent-Appellee.

                            ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Florida
                     D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cv-22489-CMA
                           ____________________

       Before ROSENBAUM, LUCK, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Upon review of the record and the parties’ responses to the
       jurisdictional question, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction over
       this appeal. On October 27, 2023, appellant Reinier Angulo filed a
       notice of appeal challenging the district court’s February 22, 2023
       order granting defendant United Parcel Service, Inc.’s (“UPS”) mo-
       tion to dismiss the claims against it and the district court’s October
       4, 2023 order administratively closing the case.
             Angulo’s third amended complaint asserted claims against
       Workhorse Custom Chassis, LLC (“Workhorse”); Navistar, Inc.
       (“Navistar”); The Shyft Group USA, Inc. (“Shyft”); and UPS. Be-
       tween February and June 2023, the district court resolved the
       claims against UPS, Navistar, and Workhorse, leaving only the
       claims against Shyft outstanding. On October 4, 2023, the district
USCA11 Case: 23-13599      Document: 18-1       Date Filed: 03/20/2024     Page: 3 of 4

       23-13599                Opinion of the Court                          3

       court issued an order administratively closing the case and direct-
       ing Angulo and Shyft to file a stipulation of dismissal as to the re-
       maining claims because they had informed the court that they
       reached a settlement agreement. The order also noted that, if the
       parties failed to complete the settlement, either party could request
       that the district court reopen the case. On November 18, 2023, af-
       ter Angulo filed his notice of appeal, a stipulation of dismissal as to
       all of Angulo’s claims against Shyft with prejudice was filed in the
       district court. The stipulation was signed only by counsel for An-
       gulo and Shyft.
               Here, Angulo’s October 27, 2023 notice of appeal was prem-
       ature to challenge the district court’s February 22, 2023 order grant-
       ing UPS’s motion to dismiss because the order administratively
       closing the case was not a final order, as it did not resolve the claims
       against Shyft and anticipated that further action from the court
       may be required. See 28 U.S.C. §1291; Acheron Cap., Ltd. v. Muk-
       amal, 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.” (internal quotation marks
       omitted)); Martinez v. Carnival Corp., 744 F.3d 1240, 1243-44 (11th
       Cir. 2014) (explaining that, while we take a functional approach to
       finality, an order administratively closing the case is not the same
       as dismissing the case and is not dispositive of finality).
             The November 18, 2023 stipulation of dismissal also did not
       produce finality. That stipulation was ineffective because it was
       signed by fewer than all parties who had appeared in the litigation,
USCA11 Case: 23-13599      Document: 18-1      Date Filed: 03/20/2024     Page: 4 of 4

       4                      Opinion of the Court                  23-13599

       so Angulo’s claims against Shyft remain 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 dismis-
       sal 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, including those who were previously removed from the
       action). Additionally, the district court did not certify its February
       22, 2023 order granting UPS’s motion to dismiss or its October 4,
       2023 order administratively closing the case 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)).
              For those reasons, we lack jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291;
       Acheron, 22 F.4th at 986. Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED for
       lack of jurisdiction.