Jerdo Robert Newson v. Eva Hernandez, et al.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-11982
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
JERDO ROBERT NEWSON,
Plaintiff-ThirdParty Defendant-Appellant,
ATLANTIC SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
ThirdParty Plaintiff,
versus
EVA HERNANDEZ,
BADGER STATE WESTERN INC,
Defendants-ThirdParty Defendants-Appellees,
JON LANCE GARBER, et al.,
USCA11 Case: 23-11982 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2024 Page: 1 of 5

-- 1 of 5 --

2 Opinion of the Court 23-11982
Defendants.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cv-02133-CAP
____________________
Before J ORDAN , R OSENBAUM, and J ILL PRYOR , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
We issued jurisdictional questions asking the parties to ad-
dress whether the relevant pleadings sufficiently established the
district court’s diversity jurisdiction, whether the district court’s
certification of a final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Proce-
dure 54(b) was proper, and several other jurisdictional issues. We
then remanded this case to the district court for the limited purpose
of determining whether diversity jurisdiction existed in the first in-
stance. On remand, the district court concluded that the parties
were completely diverse and that it thus had diversity jurisdiction.
We now turn to the remaining jurisdictional issues.
Appellant Jerdo Robert Newson seeks review of the district
court’s March 9, 2023 order entering summary judgment in favor
of Eva Hernandez and Badger State Western, Inc., which it certi-
fied for immediate appellate review under Rule 54(b). Following
issuance of that order, Newson settled his claims against remaining
defendants Jon Lance Garner and KeHE Enterprises, LLC, and the
USCA11 Case: 23-11982 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2024 Page: 2 of 5

-- 2 of 5 --

23-11982 Opinion of the Court 3
district court dismissed those claims with prejudice. The sole re-
maining claim is third-party plaintiff Atlantic Specialty Insurance
Company’s (“Atlantic”) cross-claim against Newson. While those
parties have agreed to a resolution of the claim, a settlement has
not been finalized, and neither the parties nor the district court
have dismissed the cross-claim.
We conclude that the district court did not properly certify
its March 9, 2023 order for immediate review under Rule 54(b).
Specifically, the district court abused its discretion in determining
that there was “no just reason for delay.” See Lloyd Noland Found.,
Inc. v. Tenet Health Care Corp., 483 F.3d 773, 777 (11th Cir. 2007)
(holding that to certify a case for immediate appeal under Rule
54(b), a district court must determine, inter alia, that there is “no
just reason for delay”).
As a preliminary matter, the district court did not provide
any reasoning or explanation for its certification decision other
than noting that no issues remained for its resolution. It simply
stated, summarily, that there was no just reason for delay. We
therefore accord no deference to the district court’s certification.
See Ebrahimi v. City of Huntsville Bd. of Educ., 114 F.3d 162, 166-67
(11th Cir. 1997); see also Scott v. Advanced Pharm. Consultants, Inc.,
84 F.4th 952, 962 (11th Cir. 2023) (noting that when a district court
merely concludes, without further explanation, that there is no just
reason for delay, “th[at] alone offers sufficient reason to find the
Rule 54(b) certification improper”).
USCA11 Case: 23-11982 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2024 Page: 3 of 5

-- 3 of 5 --

4 Opinion of the Court 23-11982
Here, the “special circumstances” we have identified as war-
ranting departure from the historic federal policy against piece-
meal appeals are not present. See Doe #1 v. Red Roof Inns, Inc.,
21 F.4th 714, 722-23 (11th Cir. 2021); Peden v. Stephens, 50 F.4th 972,
978-79 (11th Cir. 2022). The Rule 54(b) certification did not occur
at an early stage in the litigation, but at the very end, when there
are essentially no substantive proceedings remaining. There is no
substantial discovery to be had, and all liability issues appear to be
resolved. Nor are there a particularly large number of defendants
in this action—there were four—and, as mentioned above, the two
not involved in the summary judgment proceedings were previ-
ously dismissed.
Further, neither the parties nor the district court have iden-
tified any particular dangers of hardship or injustice associated
with delaying appellate review until final resolution of the action,
and our review of the record reveals no obvious reason to permit
an immediate appeal at this time. See Peden, 50 F.4th at 978 (ex-
plaining that Rule 54(b) certification should be limited to “instances
in which immediate appeal would alleviate some particular danger
of hardship or injustice associated with delay”). It instead appears
that delaying appellate review until Atlantic’s cross-claim against
Newson is finally resolved will cause nothing more than inconven-
ience to the parties, which is not the type of circumstance that war-
rants Rule 54(b) certification.
For these reasons, the district court’s Rule 54(b) certification
was improper. Because the district court has still not finally
USCA11 Case: 23-11982 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2024 Page: 4 of 5

-- 4 of 5 --

23-11982 Opinion of the Court 5
resolved all claims against all parties in this action, the district
court’s March 9, 2023 order is not final or immediately appealable.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Supreme Fuels Trading FZE v. Sargeant, 689 F.3d
1244, 1246 (11th Cir. 2012) (explaining that an order disposing of
fewer than all claims against all parties to an action is not final or
immediately appealable absent certification under Rule 54(b)). We
thus lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal and need not consider
the remaining jurisdictional issues.
Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdic-
tion.
USCA11 Case: 23-11982 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2024 Page: 5 of 5

-- 5 of 5 --