USCA11 Case: 23-11312 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 06/26/2023 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-11312
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
KATHERINE M. RUDD,
individually, and as Co-trustee of the J.W. Goodwin
and Virginia M. Goodwin Grandchildren's Trust,
TIFFANY RUDE ATKINSON,
individually, and as Co-trustee of the J.W. Goodwin
and Virginia M. Goodwin Grandchildren's Trust,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
BRANCH BANKING & TRUST COMPANY,
Co-trustee of the Joy Goodwin Adams Irrevocable
Trust dated 01/02/87 and the Joy Goodwin Adams
Irrevocable Trust dated 07/19/89,
USCA11 Case: 23-11312 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 06/26/2023 Page: 2 of 3
2 Opinion of the Court 23-11312
Defendant-ThirdParty Plaintiff-Appellee,
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
in its corporate capacity and as Co-trustee of the
Joy Goodwin Adams Irrevocable Trust dated
01/02/87 and the J.W. Goodwin Marital Trust,
Defendant,
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
D.C. Docket No. 2:13-cv-02016-SGC
____________________
Before: WILSON, JORDAN, and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The motion to dismiss filed by Branch Banking & Trust
Company (“BB&T”) and Joy Adams is GRANTED, and this appeal
is DISMISSED. Katherine Rudd and Tiffany Rudd Atkinson appeal
from the district court’s March 22, 2023 order that dismissed their
claims against BB&T and two of BB&T’s three third-party claims
against Adams. However, that order was not final and appealable
because BB&T’s third-party indemnification claim against Adams
remained pending and the district court did not certify the order
USCA11 Case: 23-11312 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 06/26/2023 Page: 3 of 3
23-11312 Opinion of the Court 3
for immediate review. See
28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292; CSX Transp.,
Inc. v. City of Garden City,
235 F.3d 1325, 1327 (11th Cir. 2000); Su-
preme Fuels Trading FZE v. Sargeant,
689 F.3d 1244, 1245–46 (11th
Cir. 2012) (holding that an order that disposes of fewer than all
claims against all parties to an action is not final or immediately
appealable unless certified for immediate review); Fed. R. Civ. P.
54(b); Plaintiff A v. Schair,
744 F.3d 1247, 1252–53 (11th Cir. 2014).
Furthermore, unlike the fee-shifting at issue in the cases on which
the plaintiffs rely, BB&T’s indemnification claim sought attorney’s
fees from the third-party defendant for defending against plaintiffs’
claims regardless of which party prevailed on those claims. See Bu-
dinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co.,
486 U.S. 196, 197, 199–202 (1988);
Ray Haluch Gravel Co. v. Cent. Pension Fund of Int’l Union of Operating
Eng’rs & Participating Emps.,
571 U.S. 177, 180–81, 183–86, 189–90
(2014).
