Court Opinion

ID: 9939718
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-12 16:03:19.208164+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:41:50.809866
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-13763     Document: 22-1      Date Filed: 02/12/2024     Page: 1 of 4

                                                    [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                           ____________________

                                  No. 23-13763
                            Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

       EDWIN GOMEZ,
                                                          Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       THE CITY OF MIAMI,
       a municipal corporation authorized to do
       business under the laws of the State of Florida,
       JAVIER ORTIZ,
       an individual,

                                                    Defendants-Appellees.

                           ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-13763      Document: 22-1      Date Filed: 02/12/2024     Page: 2 of 4

       2                      Opinion of the Court                  23-13763

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Florida
                     D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cv-23668-KMW
                           ____________________

       Before ROSENBAUM, BRANCH, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Upon review of the record and the parties’ responses to the
       jurisdictional question, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of juris-
       diction.
              Edwin Gomez filed a complaint against Miami Police Cap-
       tain Javier Ortiz and the City of Miami (“the City”). Gomez
       brought two counts against the City for retaliation in violation of
       Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and the First
       Amendment to the Constitution. He also asserted the First
       Amendment claim against Ortiz. The district court dismissed both
       claims against the City in an omnibus order, and the City moved
       for certification of a final judgment in its favor pursuant to Federal
       Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). On October 17, 2023, the district
       court issued an order granting that motion and an associated “final
       judgment” as to the City. Gomez appealed from the October 17,
       2023, order and judgment.
               The district court’s October 17, 2023, order is not final as to
       all claims and parties because Ortiz remains a party to the action.
       See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Acheron Cap., Ltd. v. Mukamal, 22 F.4th 979,
       986 (11th Cir. 2022). It also did not comply with the requirements
USCA11 Case: 23-13763       Document: 22-1      Date Filed: 02/12/2024      Page: 3 of 4

       23-13763                Opinion of the Court                           3

       of Rule 54(b) to certify an appealable final judgment as to the City
       while the claims against Ortiz remain pending, as both parties
       agree. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Lloyd Noland Found., Inc. v. Tenet
       Health Care Corp., 483 F.3d 773, 777 (11th Cir. 2007). While the or-
       der noted that all claims against the City were resolved, neither it
       nor the judgment explicitly stated that there was no just reason to
       delay an appeal or explain why this case presents the “rare circum-
       stance” in which an immediate appeal is warranted. See Scott v. Ad-
       vanced Pharm. Consultants, Inc., 84 F.4th 952, 959, 962 (11th Cir.
       2023) (noting that a district court’s mere conclusion that the stand-
       ard is met “alone offers sufficient reason to find the Rule 54(b) cer-
       tification improper”); Lex Tex Ltd. v. Unifi, Inc. (In re Yarn Processing
       Pat. Validity Litig.), 680 F.2d 1338, 1340 (11th Cir. 1982); Denson
       v. United States, 574 F.3d 1318, 1335 n.52 (11th Cir. 2009).
               Furthermore, our independent review reveals that the inter-
       ests of equity and judicial administration do not favor an immedi-
       ate appeal. See Scott, 84 F.4th at 959, 962; Ebrahimi v. City of Hunts-
       ville Bd. of Educ., 114 F.3d 162, 166-68 (11th Cir. 1997). The rare
       circumstances we have identified as warranting an immediate ap-
       peal under Rule 54(b) are not present here. See Peden v. Stephens,
       50 F.4th 972, 978 (11th Cir. 2022); Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Mestre, 701
       F.2d 1365, 1369-70 (11th Cir. 1983); Doe #1 v. Red Roof Inns, Inc.,
       21 F.4th 714, 722-23 (11th Cir. 2021). The parties do not identify
       any such circumstances and instead agree that an appeal under
       Rule 54(b) is not warranted.
USCA11 Case: 23-13763      Document: 22-1     Date Filed: 02/12/2024     Page: 4 of 4

       4                      Opinion of the Court                 23-13763

               Therefore, the October 17, 2023, order and associated judg-
       ment are not final or immediately appealable, and we thus lack ju-
       risdiction over this appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Supreme Fuels Trad-
       ing FZE v. Sargeant, 689 F.3d 1244, 1246 (11th Cir. 2012).