Clean Sweep Products, Inc. v. Champions of Calhoun, LLC

USCA11 Case: 23-11810 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 12/05/2023 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-11810
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
CLEAN SWEEP PRODUCTS, INC.,
Plaintiff-Counter Defendant
Appellant,
versus
CHAMPIONS OF CALHOUN, LLC,
Defendant-Counter Claimant
Appellee,
CARPET CAPITAL FIRE PROTECTION, INC.,
USCA11 Case: 23-11810 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 12/05/2023 Page: 2 of 3
2 Opinion of the Court 23-11810
Defendant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
D.C. Docket No. 4:20-cv-00227-WMR
____________________
Before BRANCH, LUCK, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Upon review of the record and the parties’ joint response to
the jurisdictional question, we agree with the parties that we lack
jurisdiction over this appeal.
Clean Sweep Products, Inc. (“Clean Sweep”) challenges the
district court’s May 17, 2023 entry of summary judgment in favor
of Champions of Calhoun, LLC (“Champions”). Clean Sweep’s
second amended complaint asserted three claims against Champi-
ons and Carpet Capital Fire Protection, Inc. (“Carpet Capital”).
Champions’s answer asserted two counterclaims against Clean
Sweep.
The district court dismissed all claims against Carpet Capital
and, in its May 17 order, resolved all claims against Champions.
But the district court did not resolve, or even mention, Champi-
ons’s counterclaims in any order.
USCA11 Case: 23-11810 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 12/05/2023 Page: 3 of 3
23-11810 Opinion of the Court 3
We lack jurisdiction over the appeal because the district
court’s May 17, 2023 order is not final or otherwise immediately
appealable. Champions’s counterclaims remain pending, and the
district court did not certify its order for immediate review under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (provid-
ing jurisdiction to review only “final decisions of the district
courts”); 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.”); Supreme Fuels Trading FZE v. Sargeant, 689 F.3d 1244,
1246 (11th Cir. 2012) (noting that an order that disposes of fewer
than all claims against all parties to an action is not immediately
appealable absent certification pursuant to Rule 54(b)). Nor is the
order effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final order resolv-
ing the case on the merits. See Plaintiff A v. Schair, 744 F.3d 1247,
1252-53 (11th Cir. 2014) (explaining that a ruling that does not con-
clude the litigation may be appealed under the collateral order doc-
trine if it, inter alia, is “effectively unreviewable on appeal from a
final judgment”).
Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdic-
tion. 1
1 We also asked the parties to address whether the relevant pleadings were
sufficient to invoke the district court’s diversity jurisdiction in the first in-
stance. Because we find that we lack jurisdiction over the appeal, we express
no opinion regarding the adequacy of the allegations or evidence regarding
diversity of citizenship and leave that determination to the district court.