Adam McLean, et al. v. Delta Air Lines Inc.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-13373
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
JEREMY SORENSON,
an individual, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
ADAM MCLEAN,
an individual,
JAMES DOYLE,
an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
DELTA AIR LINES INC.,
a Delaware Corporation,
USCA11 Case: 23-13373 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 01/04/2024 Page: 1 of 4

-- 1 of 4 --

2 Opinion of the Court 23-13373
Defendant-Appellee.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
D.C. Docket No. 1:17-cv-00541-ELR
____________________
Before WILSON, GRANT, and B RASHER , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Upon review of the record and the parties’ responses to the
jurisdictional questions, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction over
this appeal.
Appellants Adam McLean and James Doyle, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, challenge the district
court’s September 8, 2023 judgment. On March 31, 2023, the dis-
trict court issued an order granting in part defendant Delta Air
Lines, Inc.’s (“Delta”) motion for summary judgment. The March
31 order dismissed all claims asserted by plaintiffs Jeremy Sorenson,
Randal Reep, McLean, and Doyle, leaving only plaintiff Randal
Smith’s discrimination claim outstanding.
On August 30, 2023, a stipulation of dismissal pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) that purported to dis-
miss all of Smith’s claims with prejudice was filed in the district
court. The parties do not dispute that the stipulation was filed and
USCA11 Case: 23-13373 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 01/04/2024 Page: 2 of 4

-- 2 of 4 --

23-13373 Opinion of the Court 3
signed on behalf of only Smith and Delta, as reflected on the docu-
ment itself. On September 8, 2023, the clerk entered a judgment in
favor of Delta on all claims, except Smith’s discrimination claim,
and stated that Sorenson, Reep, Doyle, and McLean were dis-
missed from the action.
Because the August 30, 2023 stipulation of dismissal was
signed by fewer than all parties who had appeared in the litigation,
the stipulation was ineffective, and Smith’s discrimination claim re-
mains 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 dismissal 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, includ-
ing those who were previously removed from the action). Addi-
tionally, the district court did not certify its September 8, 2023 judg-
ment for immediate review pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Pro-
cedure 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)). Thus, we lack jurisdiction to consider this
appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Acheron Cap., Ltd. v. Mukamal,
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.” (quotation marks omitted)).
USCA11 Case: 23-13373 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 01/04/2024 Page: 3 of 4

-- 3 of 4 --

4 Opinion of the Court 23-13373
Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdic-
tion.1
1 We also asked the parties to address whether this appeal was duplicative of
appellants’ appeal in case no. 23-12698 and whether the August 30, 2023 stip-
ulation of dismissal was valid, given that it only dismissed one of the Smith’s
claims against the defendant. Because we lack jurisdiction over the appeal be-
cause the stipulation was signed by fewer than all parties that appeared in the
action, we express no opinion on the other issues raised in our jurisdictional
question.
USCA11 Case: 23-13373 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 01/04/2024 Page: 4 of 4

-- 4 of 4 --