Reinier Angulo v. The Shyft Group USA, Inc., et al

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-13599
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
REINIER ANGULO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
WORKHORSE GROUP, INC. et al.,
Defendants,
THE SHYFT GROUP USA, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee,
USCA11 Case: 23-13599 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 03/20/2024 Page: 1 of 4

-- 1 of 4 --

2 Opinion of the Court 23-13599
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.,
Respondent-Appellee.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cv-22489-CMA
____________________
Before ROSENBAUM , L UCK, and A BUDU, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Upon review of the record and the parties’ responses to the
jurisdictional question, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction over
this appeal. On October 27, 2023, appellant Reinier Angulo filed a
notice of appeal challenging the district court’s February 22, 2023
order granting defendant United Parcel Service, Inc.’s (“UPS”) mo-
tion to dismiss the claims against it and the district court’s October
4, 2023 order administratively closing the case.
Angulo’s third amended complaint asserted claims against
Workhorse Custom Chassis, LLC (“Workhorse”); Navistar, Inc.
(“Navistar”); The Shyft Group USA, Inc. (“Shyft”); and UPS. Be-
tween February and June 2023, the district court resolved the
claims against UPS, Navistar, and Workhorse, leaving only the
claims against Shyft outstanding. On October 4, 2023, the district
USCA11 Case: 23-13599 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 03/20/2024 Page: 2 of 4

-- 2 of 4 --

23-13599 Opinion of the Court 3
court issued an order administratively closing the case and direct-
ing Angulo and Shyft to file a stipulation of dismissal as to the re-
maining claims because they had informed the court that they
reached a settlement agreement. The order also noted that, if the
parties failed to complete the settlement, either party could request
that the district court reopen the case. On November 18, 2023, af-
ter Angulo filed his notice of appeal, a stipulation of dismissal as to
all of Angulo’s claims against Shyft with prejudice was filed in the
district court. The stipulation was signed only by counsel for An-
gulo and Shyft.
Here, Angulo’s October 27, 2023 notice of appeal was prem-
ature to challenge the district court’s February 22, 2023 order grant-
ing UPS’s motion to dismiss because the order administratively
closing the case was not a final order, as it did not resolve the claims
against Shyft and anticipated that further action from the court
may be required. See 28 U.S.C. §1291; Acheron Cap., Ltd. v. Muk-
amal, 22 F.4th 979, 986 (11th Cir. 2022) (“A final decision is typically
one that ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the
court to do but execute its judgment.” (internal quotation marks
omitted)); Martinez v. Carnival Corp., 744 F.3d 1240, 1243-44 (11th
Cir. 2014) (explaining that, while we take a functional approach to
finality, an order administratively closing the case is not the same
as dismissing the case and is not dispositive of finality).
The November 18, 2023 stipulation of dismissal also did not
produce finality. That stipulation was ineffective because it was
signed by fewer than all parties who had appeared in the litigation,
USCA11 Case: 23-13599 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 03/20/2024 Page: 3 of 4

-- 3 of 4 --

4 Opinion of the Court 23-13599
so Angulo’s claims against Shyft remain pending before the district
court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) (providing that a plaintiff
may voluntarily dismiss an action by filing “a stipulation of dismis-
sal signed by all parties who have appeared”); City of Jacksonville v.
Jacksonville Hosp. Holdings, L.P., 82 F.4th 1031, 1034 (11th Cir. 2023)
(holding that Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)’s signature requirement applies to
all parties, including those who were previously removed from the
action). Additionally, the district court did not certify its February
22, 2023 order granting UPS’s motion to dismiss or its October 4,
2023 order administratively closing the case for immediate review
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). See Supreme Fuels
Trading FZE v. Sargeant, 689 F.3d 1244, 1246 (11th Cir. 2012)
(providing that an order that disposes of fewer than all claims
against all parties to an action is not final or immediately appealable
absent certification by the district court pursuant to Rule 54(b)).
For those reasons, we lack jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291;
Acheron, 22 F.4th at 986. Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED for
lack of jurisdiction.
USCA11 Case: 23-13599 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 03/20/2024 Page: 4 of 4

-- 4 of 4 --