James Fitzpatrick v. Bridgestone Retail Operations ( 2020 )

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 20a0687n.06
No. 20-1481
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
JAMES MICHAEL FITZPATRICK, ) FILED
) Dec 09, 2020
Plaintiff-Appellant, ) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
)
v. )
ON APPEAL FROM THE
)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
BRIDGESTONE RETAIL OPERATIONS LLC, dba )
COURT FOR THE EASTERN
Firestone Complete Auto Care; DOROTHY HART )
DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
WILSON, )
)
Defendants-Appellees. )
Before: GUY, LARSEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. A dog bit James Fitzpatrick while he stood in line at an auto repair shop.
Fitzpatrick sued the dog’s owner, Dorothy Wilson, and Bridgestone Retail Operations, LLC, the
owner of the repair shop, in state court, alleging a variety of state-law claims. Bridgestone
removed the case to federal court, invoking the district court’s diversity jurisdiction. The parties
filed competing motions for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment to
Fitzpatrick on one of his claims against Wilson and allowed two other claims against Wilson to
proceed to trial. But the district court granted summary judgment to Bridgestone on all the claims
against it, dismissing the claims with prejudice. The court later denied Fitzpatrick’s motion for
reconsideration. Fitzpatrick now appeals the orders granting summary judgment to Bridgestone
and denying reconsideration.
Bridgestone argues that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal because Fitzpatrick has not
appealed from a final decision of the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Fitzpatrick’s reply brief
No. 20-1481, Fitzpatrick v. Bridgestone Retail Operations
offers no argument in response. Bridgestone is right. A final decision is one that “ends the
litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.” Coopers
& Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 467 (1978) (citation omitted). Here, the district court’s orders
did not end the litigation because Fitzpatrick’s claims against Wilson remain outstanding.
There is an exception to the final-decision rule to consider. “[W]hen multiple parties are
involved, the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all,
claims or parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 54(b). Fitzpatrick did not seek Rule 54(b) certification, and the district court did not
certify the appeal. Absent Rule 54(b) certification, decisions “that adjudicate[] fewer than all the
claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties,” id., such as the orders appealed
from here, do “not end the action as to any of the claims or parties,” id. As a result, the orders
appealed from were not final decisions, and we lack jurisdiction to entertain Fitzpatrick’s appeal.
We DISMISS for lack of jurisdiction.
-2-