Bulent Cosgun v. Seabourn Cruise Line Limited, Inc.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-11396
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
BULENT COSGUN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SEABOURN CRUISE LINE LIMITED INC.,
a foreign corporation,
Defendant-Appellee.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 0:21-cv-61378-RKA
USCA11 Case: 23-11396 Document: 13-1 Date Filed: 06/22/2023 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2 Opinion of the Court 23-11396
____________________
Before J ILL PRYOR , G RANT, and L UCK , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic-
tion. Bulent Cosgun appeals from the district court’s order grant-
ing Seabourn Cruise Line’s motion to compel arbitration, staying
the case pending the completion of arbitration, and denying his
motion to remand the case to state court. The order also directed
the parties to routinely file joint reports on the status of the arbi-
tration proceedings and, when the arbitration is completed, to file
a joint notice describing the outcome of the arbitration
An appeal may not be taken from an interlocutory order
that compels arbitration and stays, rather than dismisses, the ac-
tion. 9 U.S.C. § 16(b)(1)-(3); see Am. Express Fin. Advisors, Inc. v.
Makarewicz, 122 F.3d 936, 939 & n.4 (11th Cir. 1997) (dismissing for
lack of jurisdiction appeal of an order compelling arbitration, stay-
ing proceedings, and administratively closing the case); Green Tree
Fin. Corp.-Ala. V. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79, 87 n.2 (2000) (noting that if
the district court had entered a stay, rather than a dismissal, the or-
der would not have been appealable, per 9 U.S.C. § 16(b)(1)). The
district court’s order here stayed, rather than dismissed, the case
and expressly contemplated further proceedings. Cf. Martinez v.
Carnival Corp., 744 F.3d 1240, 1244 (11th Cir. 2014) (noting that ad-
ministratively closing a case is not the same as dismissing a case and
finding that order compelling arbitration was immediately
USCA11 Case: 23-11396 Document: 13-1 Date Filed: 06/22/2023 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

23-11396 Opinion of the Court 3
appealable where it “[n]otably . . . did not stay the proceedings, nor
did it contemplate any further action on this case”). Additionally,
the denial of Cosgun’s motion for remand is not final or reviewable
because the district court has not entered a final judgment and the
order denying the motion was not certified pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292(b). See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b); Woodard v. STP Corp., 170 F.3d
1043, 1044 (11th Cir. 1999) (holding that the denial of a motion for
remand of a case removed to federal court is not final and cannot
be reviewed unless certified pursuant to § 1292(b) or on appeal
from a final judgment).
No petition for rehearing may be filed unless it complies
with the timing and other requirements of 11th Cir. R. 40-3 and all
other applicable rules.
USCA11 Case: 23-11396 Document: 13-1 Date Filed: 06/22/2023 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --