The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
22-2061•Nationwide General Insurance Company; Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. Brian A. Staples
22-2061Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitMay 20, 2023
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-2061
NATIONWIDE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY; NATIONWIDE
MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
BRIAN A. STAPLES,
Defendant - Appellant,
and
NORMAN C. STEVENS,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:21-cv-00401-AWA-RJK)
Submitted: May 18, 2023 Decided: May 22, 2023
Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Brian N. Casey, CLARKE, DOLPH, HULL & BRUNICK, PLC, Virginia
Beach, Virginia, for Appellant. Shawn A. Voyles, MCKENRY, DANCIGERS,
-- 1 of 3 --
2
DAWSON, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 2 of 3 --
3
PER CURIAM:
Brian Staples seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting Nationwide General
Insurance Company’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and declaring that Nationwide
General had no coverage obligations to Staples in a state court proceeding. However, the
court’s order also declined to grant judgment on the pleadings for a second plaintiff
insurance company, and the case remains pending in the district court. This court may
exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and
collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan
Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order Staples seeks to appeal is neither a final
order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the
appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
-- 3 of 3 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.