Blue Chip Alliance, LLC v. Chetu, Inc.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: March 21, 2025
• Docket: 24-13435
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 24-13435 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 03/21/2025 Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 24-13435 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

BLUE CHIP ALLIANCE, LLC, d.b.a. The Man Shop, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellee, versus CHETU, INC.,

Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellant. ____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 0:22-cv-61602-DSL ____________________ USCA11 Case: 24-13435 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 03/21/2025 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 24-13435

Before NEWSOM, BRANCH, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: In October 2023, Blue Chip Alliance, LLC (“Blue Chip”) filed a second amended complaint against Chetu, Inc. (“Chetu”), alleg- ing that it was entitled to declaratory judgment regarding a con- tested copyright (Count I), breach of contract (Count II), fraud in the inducement (Count III), and that Chetu had violated the Flor- ida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (Count IV). Both par- ties filed motions for summary judgment. In September 2024, the district court entered an order grant- ing in part and denying in part both motions. That order resolved Count II in Blue Chip’s favor, but Counts I, III, and IV, at least in part, remained pending. Chetu appealed that order. Blue Chip filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We lack jurisdiction over the appeal. The underlying litiga- tion is ongoing, so this appeal is not taken from a final order. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (providing that the courts of appeals have jurisdic- tion over “all final decisions of the district courts”); CSX Transp., Inc. v. City of Garden City, 235 F.3d 1325, 1327 (11th Cir. 2000) (ex- plaining that “[a] final decision is one which ends the litigation on the merits” (quotation marks omitted)); Supreme Fuels Trading FZE v. Sargeant, 689 F.3d 1244, 1246 (11th Cir. 2012) (explaining, con- versely, that an order that disposes of fewer than all claims of all parties is not final). Additionally, the district court did not certify the order for immediate review. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); 28 U.S.C. USCA11 Case: 24-13435 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 03/21/2025 Page: 3 of 3

24-13435 Opinion of the Court 3

§ 1292(b). Finally, the order is not appealable as a collateral order because the court’s ruling as to Count II was not “completely sep- arate” from the merits of the action and the order will be effectively reviewable on appeal from the eventual final judgment. Acheron Cap., Ltd. v. Mukamal, 22 F.4th 979, 989, 991 (11th Cir. 2022). Accordingly, Blue Chip Alliance, LLC’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and this appeal is DISMISSED.