Court Opinion

ID: 9881046
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-29 16:00:48.18787+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:16.034568
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-11329   Document: 21-1    Date Filed: 09/29/2023   Page: 1 of 2

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                         ____________________

                              No. 23-11329
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       ALAN GRAYSON,
                                                   Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       NO LABELS, INC.,
       PROGRESS TOMORROW, INC.,
       UNITED TOGETHER, INC.,
       NANCY JACOBSON,
       MARK PENN, et al.,

                                               Defendants-Appellees.

                         ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-11329      Document: 21-1     Date Filed: 09/29/2023     Page: 2 of 2

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 23-11329

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Middle District of Florida
                   D.C. Docket No. 6:20-cv-01824-PGB-LHP
                           ____________________

       Before JORDAN, BRANCH, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Upon our review of the record and the response to the juris-
       dictional question, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdic-
       tion. The district court’s order is not final or immediately appeala-
       ble because, although the district court found that Appellees were
       entitled to attorney’s fees, it did not determine the amount of fees
       to be awarded. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC
       v. 3.921 Acres of Land, 947 F.3d 1362, 1370 (11th Cir. 2020). The dis-
       trict court directed Appellees to file a supplemental motion for a
       determination of the fee amount, and that motion is still pending.
       Thus, the district court’s order is not “apparently the last order to
       be entered in the action” because the court has not resolved Appel-
       lees’ attorney’s fees motion, which sparked the instant postjudg-
       ment proceedings. See Mayer v. Wall St. Equity Grp., Inc.,
       672 F.3d 1222, 1224 (11th Cir. 2012).