Dereky Martin Hagler v. Tammy Rivera Williams

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-14236
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
DEREKY MARTIN HAGLER,
Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellant,
versus
TAMMY RIVERA WILLIAMS,
a.k.a. Tammy Rivera Malphurs,
Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellee.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
D.C. Docket No. 1:19-cv-03015-JPB
USCA11 Case: 22-14236 Document: 51-1 Date Filed: 07/03/2023 Page: 1 of 5

-- 1 of 5 --

2 Opinion of the Court 22-14236
____________________
Before WILSON, L UCK , and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Dereky Hagler (“Dereky”) appeals the district court’s grant
of summary judgment in favor of Tammy Rivera Williams (“Mal-
phurs”) in Dereky’s lawsuit against Malphurs. Upon review of this
case, we have determined that we do not have jurisdiction because
there is no final judgment. When Dereky filed suit against Mal-
phurs, Malphurs responded by filing counterclaims against her.
Shortly thereafter, Dereky’s husband Albert filed a separate suit
against Malphurs, raising almost identical claims, but Malphurs did
not file counterclaims against him. While the district court granted
summary judgment to Malphurs on Dereky’s claims and denied
Dereky’s motion for default judgment, it denied Malphurs sum-
mary judgment on her counterclaims. Thereafter, it consolidated
the two cases and administratively closed Dereky’s case. There is
nothing in the record indicating the counterclaims which Malphurs
filed against Dereky in response to Dereky’s complaint against her
have been disposed of.
“We have a threshold obligation to ensure that we have ju-
risdiction to hear an appeal, for without jurisdiction we cannot pro-
ceed at all in any cause.” Acheron Cap., Ltd. v. Mukamal, 22 F.4th 979,
986 (11th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks omitted). Federal
appellate courts have jurisdiction to review “appeals from all final
decisions of the district courts of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. §
USCA11 Case: 22-14236 Document: 51-1 Date Filed: 07/03/2023 Page: 2 of 5

-- 2 of 5 --

22-14236 Opinion of the Court 3
1291. Typically, a decision is sufficiently final when it “ends the lit-
igation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but
execute the judgment.” Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard, 486 U.S. 517,
521–22 (1988). In this case we requested and received supplemental
briefing on the jurisdictional issue sua sponte identified by the court.
In Hall v. Hall, 138 S. Ct. 1118 (2018), the Court held that two
cases were independent despite being consolidated under Rule
42(a) and allowed the appeal of the completed one while the other
was still pending. There, an inter vivos trust filed against the son
for various torts and when the mother/trustee died, her daughter
became the trustee. The son then filed counterclaims against his
sister in her capacity as a trustee and individually. However, be-
cause she was not a party in her individual capacity in the trust case,
he had to file a separate action to raise the claims against her in her
individual capacity. Thus, the son had counterclaims against the
daughter in the trust case and claims against her in her individual
capacity in the individual case. After being consolidated, the cases
were tried together. Just before trial, the district court dismissed
the son’s counterclaims against the daughter in the trust case, leav-
ing the daughter’s (as trustee) claims against the son as the only
claims left in the trust case. While the jury decided against the
daughter in both cases, the judge ordered a new trial in the individ-
ual case. She appealed the trust case and the Supreme Court held
that the cases were separate notwithstanding the consolidation,
and there was a final judgment in the trust case that could be ap-
pealed. In other words, the Supreme Court held in Hall: “when one
of several consolidated cases is finally decided, a disappointed
USCA11 Case: 22-14236 Document: 51-1 Date Filed: 07/03/2023 Page: 3 of 5

-- 3 of 5 --

4 Opinion of the Court 22-14236
litigant is free to seek review of that decision in the court of ap-
peals.” Id. at 1131.
As in Hall, in the instant appeal, we also have two cases. The
first case (“Case #1”) is Dereky’s complaint against Malphurs, in
which Malphurs filed counterclaims against Dereky. Although the
district court granted summary judgment in favor of Malphurs on
Dereky’s claims, Malphurs’ counterclaims against Dereky have not
been finally resolved.
The second case (“Case #2”) is Alfred’s separate complaint
against Malphurs. Dereky is not a party to this Case #2. The rec-
ord reveals that Alfred’s case is still pending in the district court.
Although as in Hall, the two cases in this appeal have been
consolidated, the instant case is distinguished from Hall. In this
case, Dereky is appealing the summary judgment against her in
Case #1. However, Malphurs’ counterclaims against Dereky are
still pending in the district court, and they are part of Dereky’s Case
#1.1 This case is not like the situation in Hall—where there were
no claims still pending in the district court in the case being ap-
pealed.
1 Although the district court here instructed that “future filings in these [con-
solidated] cases shall occur only in” the case number for Alfred’s cases, Doc.
121 at 19, and although the district court administratively closed Case #1, we
do not believe that that somehow eliminates from Case #1 Malphurs’ coun-
terclaims against Dereky and somehow relocates them in Alfred’s Case #2, a
case to which Dereky is not even a party.
USCA11 Case: 22-14236 Document: 51-1 Date Filed: 07/03/2023 Page: 4 of 5

-- 4 of 5 --

22-14236 Opinion of the Court 5
In other words, in the case on appeal, Case #1, there is not
a final judgment because Malphurs’ counterclaims against Dereky
are still pending in the district court. Accordingly, we do not have
appellate jurisdiction. The appeal is
DISMISSED.
USCA11 Case: 22-14236 Document: 51-1 Date Filed: 07/03/2023 Page: 5 of 5

-- 5 of 5 --