Tommy D. Lay, II v. Storm Smart Building Systems, Inc.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-13500
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
TOMMY D. LAY, II,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
BRYON DAWSON,
Plaintiff,
versus
STORM SMART BUILDING SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-13500 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 01/19/2024 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2 Opinion of the Court 23-13500
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 2:20-cv-00746-NPM
____________________
Before WILSON, BRANCH , and L AGOA , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Tommy D. Lay, II, proceeding pro se, appeals from the dis-
trict court’s September 22, 2023, order granting his counsel’s mo-
tion to withdraw. A jurisdictional question (“JQ”) asked the parties
to address the nature of our jurisdiction over this appeal, but the
appellee did not respond to the JQ. Upon review of Lay’s response
to the JQ and the record, we DISMISS this appeal for lack of juris-
diction.
The September 22 order is not final because all claims
against Storm Smart Building Systems, Inc. have not been resolved.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; CSX Transp. Inc. v. City of Garden City, 235 F.3d
1325, 1327 (11th Cir. 2000). The February 20, 2023, stipulation of
voluntary dismissal; the February 24, 2023, order recognizing that
stipulation; and the June 20, 2023, stipulation of voluntary dismissal
are all invalid because they each seek to dismiss a single claim
against Storm Smart rather than the entire action. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 41(a); Esteva v. Ubs Fin. Servs. Inc. (In re Esteva), 60 F.4th 664, 675
(11th Cir. 2023); Rosell v. VMSB, LLC., 67 F.4th 1141, 1144 (11th Cir.
2023). And neither stipulation was signed by all parties who had
USCA11 Case: 23-13500 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 01/19/2024 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

23-13500 Opinion of the Court 3
appeared in the action. See City of Jacksonville v. Jacksonville Hospi-
tality Holdings, L.P., 82 F.4th 1031, 1038-39 (11th Cir. 2023).
Contrary to Lay’s contentions, the order granting counsel’s
motion to withdraw is not an immediately appealable injunctive
order. See § 1292(a)(1); Alabama v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 424
F.3d 1117, 1128 (11th Cir. 2005); United States v. Bowman, 341 F.3d
1228, 1236 (11th Cir. 2003). Nor is it immediately appealable under
28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) or the collateral order doctrine. Cf. Richardson-
Merrell, Inc. v. Koller, 472 U.S. 424, 440 (1985) (concluding that “or-
ders disqualifying counsel in a civil case are not collateral orders
subject to immediate appeal”); 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (requiring a dis-
trict judge to certify, in writing, an order for immediate appeal un-
der this subsection).
All pending motions are DENIED as moot.
USCA11 Case: 23-13500 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 01/19/2024 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --