Alan Grayson v. No Labels, Inc.

Opinion

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-11329

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

ALAN GRAYSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus NO LABELS, INC., PROGRESS TOMORROW, INC., UNITED TOGETHER, INC., NANCY JACOBSON, MARK PENN, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________

2

2 Opinion of the Court 23-11329

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 6:20-cv-01824-PGB-LHP

____________________

Before JORDAN, BRANCH, and LUCK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

Upon our review of the record and the response to the jurisdictional question, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction . The district court’s order is not final or immediately appealable because, although the district court found that Appellees were entitled to attorney’s fees, it did not determine the amount of fees to be awarded. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC v. 3.921 Acres of Land, 947 F.3d 1362, 1370 (11th Cir. 2020). The district court directed Appellees to file a supplemental motion for a determination of the fee amount, and that motion is still pending. Thus, the district court’s order is not “apparently the last order to be entered in the action” because the court has not resolved Appellees ’ attorney’s fees motion, which sparked the instant postjudgment proceedings. See Mayer v. Wall St. Equity Grp., Inc., 672 F.3d 1222, 1224 (11th Cir. 2012).