Abraka Okposio v. Barry University, Inc.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: April 13, 2026
• Docket: 26-10563
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 26-10563 Document: 13-1 Date Filed: 04/13/2026 Page: 1 of 3

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 26-10563 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

ABRAKA OKPOSIO, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus

BARRY UNIVERSITY, INC., a Florida corporation, BETHANY PIERPONT, individually, LETICIA M. DIAZ, ROXANNA P. CRUZ, AMY M. LEFKOWITZ, Defendants-Appellees, MARIA L. ALVAREZ, Defendant. USCA11 Case: 26-10563 Document: 13-1 Date Filed: 04/13/2026 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 26-10563 ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cv-23814-DPG ____________________

Before LAGOA, BRASHER, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Abraka Okposio, proceeding pro se, filed this action alleging 35 claims under Florida law for fraudulent misrepresentation, gross negligence, and vicarious liability against Barry University, Inc., and several of its current or former employees. In an order entered on March 5, 2025, the district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss as to Counts 1-9, 20-23, and 29-31 but denied the motion as to Counts 10-19, 24-28, and 32-35. Okposio filed a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) and (b) motion to vacate that part of the court’s order that dismissed her fraudulent misrepresentation claims. While that motion was pend- ing, the court entered an order on May 8, 2025, dismissing one of the defendants for failure to perfect service of process, thereby dis- posing of Counts 10, 15, and 24. This left Counts 11-14, 16-19, 25- 28, and 32-35 still pending. The district court denied Okposio’s Rule 60 motion in an or- der entered on February 4, 2026, which she now appeals. Because they did not dispose of all claims, the court’s March 5, 2025 and May 8, 2025 orders were not final, and thus, neither was its February 4, 2026 order denying Okposio’s motion to vacate USCA11 Case: 26-10563 Document: 13-1 Date Filed: 04/13/2026 Page: 3 of 3

26-10563 Opinion of the Court 3

part of the March 5 order. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292; Supreme Fuels Trading FZE v. Sargeant, 689 F.3d 1244, 1245-46 (11th Cir. 2012) (explaining that an order that disposes of fewer than all the claims of all parties to an action is not final or immediately appealable un- less the district court certifies the order for immediate review pur- suant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) (providing for entry of judgment as to fewer than all claims or parties); Freyre v. Chronister, 910 F.3d 1371, 1377 (11th Cir. 2018) (explaining that a district court order which “contemplates further substantive pro- ceedings in a case is not final and appealable”). Further, the Febru- ary 4 order is not an otherwise appealable interlocutory order be- cause the court did not certify its order as immediately appealable under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) or 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), the order did not resolve an issue completely separate from the merits, and the order is effectively reviewable upon appeal from the final judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b); Plaintiff A v. Schair, 744 F.3d 1247, 1252-53 (11th Cir. 2014) (explaining that, under the collateral order doctrine, an order that does not conclude the liti- gation may be appealed if it resolves an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action and would be effectively un- reviewable on appeal from a final judgment). Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction.