Lan Li v. Joseph Walsh, et al

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-13058
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
LAN LI,
an individual, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Counter Defendants,
versus
JOSEPH WALSH,
Defendant-Third Party Defendant,
JOSEPH WALSH, JR. et al.,
Defendants,
USCA11 Case: 22-13058 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 04/22/2024 Page: 1 of 5

-- 1 of 5 --

2 Opinion of the Court 22-13058
SOUTH ATLANTIC REGIONAL CENTER, LLC
a Florida Limited Liability Company,
Defendant-Counter Claimant,
KK-PB FINANCIAL, LLC,
a Florida Limited Liability Company,
Defendant-Cross Claimant-
Appellant,
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 9:16-cv-81871-KAM
____________________
Before GRANT, BRASHER , and A NDERSON , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This case presents the second time that KK-PB Financial,
LLC appeals the district court’s summary judgment order on its
crossclaims against Leslie Robert Evans and his law firm, Leslie
Robert Evans & Associates, P.A. The first time, we dismissed KK-
PB’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the summary judgment
order was not final as there were pending claims against the Evans
USCA11 Case: 22-13058 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 04/22/2024 Page: 2 of 5

-- 2 of 5 --

22-13058 Opinion of the Court 3
defendants and the other defendants, and the district court never
certified the order for immediate review under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 54(b). Li v. Walsh, No. 22-10864, 2022 WL 4230212,
at *1 (11th Cir. July 6, 2022). Now back on appeal, the district court
has certified its order for immediate appeal under Rule 54(b). But
because we find that its Rule 54(b) certification was an abuse of
discretion, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
This Court generally has jurisdiction to review district court
judgments that resolve “conclusively the substance of all claims,
rights, and liabilities of all parties to an action.” Sanchez v. Disc. Rock
& Sand, Inc., 84 F.4th 1283, 1291 (11th Cir. 2023) (emphasis omitted)
(quotation omitted). Rule 54(b), however, provides a narrow
exception—a district court may enter partial final judgment if it
“expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 54(b). Certifications under Rule 54(b) “must be reserved
for the unusual case in which the costs and risks of multiplying the
number of proceedings and of overcrowding the appellate docket
are outbalanced by pressing needs of the litigants for an early and
separate judgment as to some claims or parties.” Ebrahimi v. City of
Huntsville Bd. of Educ., 114 F.3d 162, 166 (11th Cir. 1997) (quotation
omitted).
“A district court must follow a two-step analysis in
determining whether a partial final judgment may properly be
certified under Rule 54(b).” Peden v. Stephens, 50 F.4th 972, 977 (11th
Cir. 2022) (quotation omitted). First, it must determine that its
decision is “an ultimate disposition of an individual claim entered
USCA11 Case: 22-13058 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 04/22/2024 Page: 3 of 5

-- 3 of 5 --

4 Opinion of the Court 22-13058
in the course of a multiple claims action,” and that it is a “decision
upon a cognizable claim for relief.” Id. (quotation omitted). Second,
the court must “determine that there is no just reason for delay.”
Id. We review the first step of the analysis de novo, and the second
for abuse of discretion. Id. at 976–77.
We hold that the district court erred by concluding that
there was “no just reason for delay” in this case. The district court
never explained its reasoning for its Rule 54(b) certification, so “we
cannot defer to the district court determination and must assess
whether any obvious reasons support” Rule 54(b) certification.
Ebrahimi, 114 F.3d at 167. Here, there are no special circumstances
justifying immediate appeal. The underlying suit is still ongoing,
and while the claims against KK-PB may have been settled and
dismissed, the claims against the Evans defendants remain
pending.1 Those pending claims are also sufficiently related to the
crossclaims on appeal: both concern whether the Evans defendants
improperly failed to timely record KK-PB’s mortgage. Still, KK-PB
and the Evans defendants argue that Rule 54(b) certification is
warranted because the underlying suit is complicated and “will
take a long time to adjudicate.” But lengthy litigation, although
perhaps inconvenient, is not enough—there must be some
1 The Evans defendants and the plaintiffs in the underlying lawsuit filed joint
stipulations of dismissal, stating that the claims against the Evans defendants
had been settled. But the stipulations were not signed by all parties, and the
district court never entered an order addressing those stipulations. These
attempts to dismiss were thus ineffective. See City of Jacksonville v. Jacksonville
Hosp. Holdings, L.P., 82 F.4th 1031, 1034, 1039 (11th Cir. 2023).
USCA11 Case: 22-13058 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 04/22/2024 Page: 4 of 5

-- 4 of 5 --

22-13058 Opinion of the Court 5
indication that this would diminish a party’s ability to recover, or
that there is some other “pressing need for an early and separate
judgment.” Peden, 50 F.4th at 979 (alteration adopted) (quotation
omitted). Here, there is no such indication. We accordingly
DISMISS for lack of jurisdiction.
USCA11 Case: 22-13058 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 04/22/2024 Page: 5 of 5

-- 5 of 5 --