Nicholas Harding v. Google LLC, No. 23-11974 (11th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
USCA11 Case: 23-11974 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 09/05/2023 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 23-11974 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ NICHOLAS HARDING, Plainti -Appellant, versus GOOGLE LLC, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 3:23-cv-00321-BJD-JBT ____________________ USCA11 Case: 23-11974 2 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 09/05/2023 Opinion of the Court Page: 2 of 3 23-11974 Before WILSON, JORDAN, and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction. Nicholas Harding appeals from the district court’s order granting Google LLC’s motion to compel arbitration and staying the case pending the completion of arbitration. The order also directed the parties to routinely le reports on the status of the arbitration proceedings. An appeal may not be taken from an interlocutory order that compels arbitration and stays, rather than dismisses, the action. 9 U.S.C. § 16(b)(1)-(3); see Am. Express Fin. Advisors, Inc. v. Makarewicz, 122 F.3d 936, 939 & n.4 (11th Cir. 1997) (dismissing for lack of jurisdiction appeal of an order compelling arbitration, staying proceedings, and administratively closing the case); Green Tree Fin. Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79, 87 n.2 (2000) (noting that if the district court had entered a stay, rather than a dismissal, the order would not have been appealable, per 9 U.S.C. § 16(b)(1)). The district court’s order here stayed, rather than dismissed, the case and expressly contemplated further proceedings. Cf. Martinez v. Carnival Corp., 744 F.3d 1240, 1244 (11th Cir. 2014) (noting that administratively closing a case is not the same as dismissing a case and nding that order compelling arbitration was immediately appealable where it “[n]otably . . . did not stay the proceedings, nor did it contemplate any further action on this case”). USCA11 Case: 23-11974 23-11974 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 09/05/2023 Opinion of the Court Page: 3 of 3 3 All pending motions are DENIED as moot. No petition for rehearing may be led unless it complies with the timing and other requirements of 11th Cir. R. 40-3 and all other applicable rules.
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.
