Alan Grayson v. No Labels, Inc.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: September 29, 2023
• Docket: 23-11329
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 23-11329 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 09/29/2023 Page: 1 of 2

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit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.

____________________ USCA11 Case: 23-11329 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 09/29/2023 Page: 2 of 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 juris- dictional question, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdic- tion. The district court’s order is not final or immediately appeala- ble 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 dis- trict 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 Appel- lees’ attorney’s fees motion, which sparked the instant postjudg- ment proceedings. See Mayer v. Wall St. Equity Grp., Inc., 672 F.3d 1222, 1224 (11th Cir. 2012).