Clean Sweep Products, Inc. v. Champions of Calhoun, LLC, No. 23-11810 (11th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
USCA11 Case: 23-11810 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 12/05/2023 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 23-11810 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ CLEAN SWEEP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., Plainti -Counter Defendant Appellant, versus CHAMPIONS OF CALHOUN, LLC, Defendant-Counter Claimant Appellee, CARPET CAPITAL FIRE PROTECTION, INC., USCA11 Case: 23-11810 2 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 12/05/2023 Opinion of the Court Page: 2 of 3 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 Champions 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, Champions’s counterclaims in any order. USCA11 Case: 23-11810 23-11810 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 12/05/2023 Opinion of the Court Page: 3 of 3 3 We lack jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court’s May 17, 2023 order is not nal 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 (providing jurisdiction to review only “ nal decisions of the district courts”); Acheron Cap., Ltd. v. Mukamal, 22 F.4th 979, 986 (11th Cir. 2022) (“A nal 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 certi cation pursuant to Rule 54(b)). Nor is the order e ectively unreviewable on appeal from a nal order resolving the case on the merits. See Plainti A v. Schair, 744 F.3d 1247, 1252-53 (11th Cir. 2014) (explaining that a ruling that does not conclude the litigation may be appealed under the collateral order doctrine if it, inter alia, is “e ectively unreviewable on appeal from a nal judgment”). Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. 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 instance. 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. 1
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
