Brian Evans v. StubHub, Inc.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: June 2, 2026
• Docket: 25-13767
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 25-13767 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 06/02/2026 Page: 1 of 3

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-13767 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

BRIAN EVANS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus

STUBHUB, INC., Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 0:25-cv-61708-RS ____________________

Before JILL PRYOR, LAGOA, and KIDD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: In August 2025, Brian Evans, pro se, filed a complaint against StubHub, Inc. (“StubHub”), asserting various claims related to tick- USCA11 Case: 25-13767 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 06/02/2026 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 25-13767

ets he purchased from StubHub. StubHub filed a motion to com- pel arbitration and stay the proceedings, arguing that Evans was bound by an arbitration clause contained in StubHub’s user agree- ment. In October 2025, the district court entered an order granting StubHub’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings. It also instructed the parties to file a joint case status report by Jan- uary 1, 2026, denied all pending motions as moot, and administra- tively closed the case. Evans appealed that order. StubHub filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of ju- risdiction, arguing that it was not taken from a final, appealable or- der. Evans opposes that motion, arguing that the district court’s order did not stay the proceedings, but instead effectively termi- nated the action by administratively closing the case and denying all pending motions. We conclude that we lack jurisdiction over Evans’s appeal. StubHub’s motion to compel arbitration expressly sought to stay the court proceedings, and the district court granted that motion in full and without qualification. Its order for a status report and its administrative closure, rather than dismissal, of the case are con- sistent with a stay. We thus conclude that the district court’s ruling is not final or otherwise appealable. See 9 U.S.C. § 16(b)(1)-(3) (stat- ing that an appeal may not be taken from an interlocutory order compelling arbitration, directing arbitration to proceed, or staying an action pending arbitration); 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292; CSX Transp., Inc. v. City of Garden City, 235 F.3d 1325, 1327 (11th Cir. USCA11 Case: 25-13767 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 06/02/2026 Page: 3 of 3

25-13767 Opinion of the Court 3

2000) (providing that, to be appealable, an order must either be fi- nal, ending the case on the merits and leaving nothing for the court to do but execute its judgment, or “fall into a specific class of inter- locutory orders that are made appealable by statute or jurispruden- tial exception”); see also Am. Express Fin. Advisors, Inc. v. Makarewicz, 122 F.3d 936, 939 (11th Cir. 1997) (dismissing appeal of order com- pelling arbitration, staying proceedings, and administratively clos- ing the case). Moreover, the district court’s administrative closure of the case did not render the order final. See Martinez v. Carnival Corp., 744 F.3d 1240, 1243–45 (11th Cir. 2014) (explaining that an administrative closure is neither equivalent to a dismissal nor dis- positive of finality). Accordingly, StubHub’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and this appeal is DISMISSED. All pending motions are DENIED as moot.