Nicholas Harding v. Google LLC

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: September 5, 2023
• Docket: 23-11974
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 23-11974 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 09/05/2023 Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-11974 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

NICHOLAS HARDING, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus GOOGLE LLC,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 3:23-cv-00321-BJD-JBT ____________________ USCA11 Case: 23-11974 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 09/05/2023 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 23-11974

Before WILSON, JORDAN, and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic- tion. Nicholas Harding appeals from the district court’s order granting Google LLC’s motion to compel arbitration and staying the case pending the completion of arbitration. The order also di- rected the parties to routinely file reports on the status of the arbi- tration proceedings. An appeal may not be taken from an interlocutory order that compels arbitration and stays, rather than dismisses, the ac- tion. 9 U.S.C. § 16(b)(1)-(3); see Am. Express Fin. Advisors, Inc. v. Makarewicz, 122 F.3d 936, 939 & n.4 (11th Cir. 1997) (dismissing for lack of jurisdiction appeal of an order compelling arbitration, stay- ing proceedings, and administratively closing the case); Green Tree Fin. Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79, 87 n.2 (2000) (noting that if the district court had entered a stay, rather than a dismissal, the or- der would not have been appealable, per 9 U.S.C. § 16(b)(1)). The district court’s order here stayed, rather than dismissed, the case and expressly contemplated further proceedings. Cf. Martinez v. Carnival Corp., 744 F.3d 1240, 1244 (11th Cir. 2014) (noting that ad- ministratively closing a case is not the same as dismissing a case and finding that order compelling arbitration was immediately appeal- able where it “[n]otably . . . did not stay the proceedings, nor did it contemplate any further action on this case”). USCA11 Case: 23-11974 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 09/05/2023 Page: 3 of 3

23-11974 Opinion of the Court 3

All pending motions are DENIED as moot. No petition for rehearing may be filed unless it complies with the timing and other requirements of 11th Cir. R. 40-3 and all other applicable rules.