Eddie Williams, Jr. v. Yrc Worldwide, Inc.

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Argued February 20, 2018
Decided February 22, 2018
Before
DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
AMY C. BARRETT, Circuit Judge
No. 17-3122
EDDIE WILLIAMS, JR., et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
YRC WORLDWIDE, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United
States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division.
No. 14 C 8758
Susan E. Cox,
Magistrate Judge.
Order
Eddie Williams, Jr.; Karl Harris; Thomas Jackson; and Derrick Rias are four of the
fourteen plaintiffs in a suit (No. 14 C 8758) filed in the Northern District of Illinois.
Three plaintiffs have settled with the defendant, and a magistrate judge (serving by
agreement under 28 U.S.C. §636(c)) entered summary judgment against the four we
have named. McDade v. YRC Worldwide, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147813 (N.D. Ill. Sept.
13, 2017). The claims of the other seven plaintiffs are set for trial later this year.
Although the case remains pending in the district court, the four losing plaintiffs
immediately appealed. They should not have done so. A judgment is final and appeala-

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 17-3122 Page 2
ble under 28 U.S.C. §1291 only if it “resolves all claims of all parties”. Domanus v. Locke
Lord LLP, 847 F.3d 469, 477 (7th Cir. 2017) (emphasis in original). This rule is of very
long standing. See, e.g., Meagher v. Minnesota Thresher Manufacturing Co., 145 U.S. 608,
611 (1892); Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, 10 Federal Practice
& Procedure §2656 (3d ed. 2014). Although Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) allows a district court to
enter a partial final judgment, none has been entered for these litigants.
There is a complication with a potential jurisdictional significance. The district court
has consolidated Case No. 14 C 8758 with Case No. 14 C 1500, another employment-
discrimination suit against YRC Worldwide. The summary-judgment order was entered
on the docket in Case No. 14 C 1500, which our appellants identified as the decision be-
ing appealed. Consolidation potentially defers appealability until all claims by all liti-
gants in all of the cases have been resolved. Hall v. Hall, No. 16–1150, now under ad-
visement in the Supreme Court (it was argued on January 16, 2018), may decide what
kinds of consolidations require all consolidated cases to be resolved before the decision
in any may be appealed. But we need not await the decision in Hall. It is enough to say
that, in the absence of a partial final judgment under Rule 54(b), the fact that seven
plaintiffs’ claims in Case No. 14 C 8758 remain to be decided by the district court pre-
vents these four plaintiffs from appealing.
Once there is a final judgment, these four plaintiffs (if they again appeal) should no-
tify the court whether they want to use the briefs already on file, which address the
merits. Any follow-up appeal will be submitted to this panel for decision.
The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

-- 2 of 2 --