Ali Erenler v. TJM Columbus, LLC

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: May 28, 2025
• Docket: 25-10136
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 25-10136 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 05/28/2025 Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 25-10136 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

ALI CEM ERENLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus TJM COLUMBUS, LLC, TJM SYRACUSE, LLC, TJM TREVOSE, LLC, TJM PROPERTIES, INC., TERENCE J. MCCARTHY, Trustee on behalf of the Terence J. McCarthy Family Trust, TERENCE J. MCCARTHY,

Defendants-Appellees. USCA11 Case: 25-10136 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 05/28/2025 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 25-10136

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 8:21-cv-00671-SDM-SPF ____________________

Before BRANCH, GRANT, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Ali Erenler appeals from the district court’s December 16, 2024, order granting in part the defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. In that order, the court ruled that the defendants were entitled to approximately $6,000 in costs as well as attorneys’ fees, but it did not determine the specific amount of attorneys’ fees to be awarded. A jurisdictional question asked the parties to address whether this appeal is taken from a final, appealable order given that the December 16 order did not determine the amount of at- torneys’ fees to be awarded to the defendants. The defendants ar- gue that we lack jurisdiction to review the attorney’s fees ruling but have jurisdiction to review the costs ruling. Erenler argues that we have jurisdiction to review the entirety of the December 16 or- der. We lack jurisdiction over this appeal because it is not taken from a final, appealable order. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Acheron Cap., Ltd. v. Mukamal, 22 F.4th 979, 986 (11th Cir. 2022) (“A final decision is typically one that ends the litigation on the merits and leaves USCA11 Case: 25-10136 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 05/28/2025 Page: 3 of 3

25-10136 Opinion of the Court 3

nothing for the court to do but execute its judgment.”). The De- cember 16 post-judgment order is not final because it did not fully dispose of the motion that initially sparked the post-judgment pro- ceedings, i.e., the defendants’ single motion for both attorneys’ fees and costs. See Mayer v. Wall St. Equity Grp., Inc., 672 F.3d 1222, 1224 (11th Cir. 2012). Specifically, the order did not determine the amount of attorney’s fees. See Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC v. 3.291 Acres of Land in Lake Cnty. Fla., 947 F.3d 1362, 1370 (11th Cir. 2020) (“[W]hen a district court has entered an order determining that a party is liable for attorney’s fees and costs but has not set the amount of the award, there is no final order on fees and costs.”). Accordingly, we DISMISS this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.