Non Performing LLC, et al v. John Tyre, et al

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 24-10133
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
FLA MORTGAGE CAPITAL CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
NON PERFORMING LLC,
OSLO GROUP LLC,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
versus
JOHN E. TYRE,
a.k.a. John Edwin Tyre II,
KAY TYRE,
a.k.a. Lanita K. Tyre,
USCA11 Case: 24-10133 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 04/04/2024 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2 Opinion of the Court 24-10133
Defendants-Appellants.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 3:22-cv-01012-BJD-PDB
____________________
Before J ORDAN, NEWSOM , and BRASHER , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Upon review of the record and the responses to the jurisdic-
tional question, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
Appellants challenge the December 12 and 13, 2023 order and judg-
ment in this foreclosure action granting the plaintiffs summary
judgment and entering judgment against the appellants in the
amount of $256,466.42. However, the December 12 order in-
structed the plaintiffs to file a proposed final judgment of foreclo-
sure, and the district court has not yet entered that judgment or
otherwise foreclosed the plaintiffs’ security interest, ordered the
sale of the relevant property if the monetary judgment is not paid,
or established the terms for any such sale.
Thus, the December 2023 order and judgment are not yet
final because there remain outstanding proceedings to fully resolve
the plaintiff’s complaint for foreclosure. See CSX Transp., Inc. v. City
of Garden City, 235 F.3d 1325, 1327 (11th Cir. 2000); Burlington, Cedar
Rapid & N. Ry. Co. v. Simmons, 123 U.S. 52, 54-56 (1887) (explaining
USCA11 Case: 24-10133 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 04/04/2024 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

24-10133 Opinion of the Court 3
that, in a foreclosure action, the proceedings are not final if there is
no order of sale); see also Citibank, N.A. v. Data Lease Fin. Corp., 645
F.2d 333, 337 (5th Cir. Unit B May 1981). The order and judgment
are not appealable under the doctrine of practical finality for the
same reasons and because there has not been a showing of irrepa-
rable harm. See Burlington, Cedar Rapid & N. Ry. Co., 123 U.S. at
54-56; Acheron Cap., Ltd. v. Mukamal, 22 F.4th 979, 991-92 (11th Cir.
2022).
USCA11 Case: 24-10133 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 04/04/2024 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --