Carringer v. Tessmer

10 Citing cases

  1. Mitchell v. Vill. Capital & Inv.

    No. 21-12627 (11th Cir. Aug. 4, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    To properly certify a judgment as final under rule 54(b), "the district court must expressly accomplish what the [r]ule clearly mandates." Carringer v. Tessmer, 253 F.3d 1322, 1324 (11th Cir. 2001).

  2. Council v. Sutton

    366 F. App'x 31 (11th Cir. 2010)   Cited 6 times
    Affirming denial of qualified immunity to deputies who used taser and shotgun with beanbag rounds against prisoner who alleged "he remained subdued and on the floor while the Deputies used the taser and shotgun on him"

    However, we sua sponte dismiss the Deputies' challenges to the denial of their motion for summary judgment regarding Council's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies under the PLRA, his failure to allege official capacity claims, and his lack of standing because these challenges are not intertwined with the denial of qualified immunity and do not meet the Cohen test for interlocutory review under the collateral order doctrine. See Carringer v. Tessmer, 253 F.3d 1322, 1323 (11th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (finding that the issue of standing is not immediately reviewable on interlocutory appeal); Simon v. Pfizer Inc., 398 F.3d 765, 771 (6th Cir. 2005) (finding that failure to exhaust administrative remedies is not immediately appealable); Stewart v. Okla., 292 F.3d 1257, 1260 (10th Cir. 2002) (same). III.

  3. Israel v. Alfa Laval, Inc.

    8:20-cv-2133-02AAS (M.D. Fla. Jul. 30, 2021)

    The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that โ€œwhen multiple parties are involved, the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay.โ€ Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Carringer v. Tessmer, 253 F.3d 1322, 1323 (11th Cir. 2001). Unless the district court directs entry of a final judgment, an adjudication of fewer than all the claims of all the parties is not an appealable final decision.

  4. Sperry Assocs. Fed. Credit Union v. Space Coast Credit Union

    Case No: 6:10-cv-1259-Orl-36DAB (M.D. Fla. Oct. 5, 2012)   Cited 1 times
    Determining that "the Eleventh Circuit explicitly rejects the argument that the burden of two potential trials justifies a Rule 54(b) certification" and that "Rule 54(b) is not the proper mechanism for seeking appellate review of dismissed claims in order to avoid an additional trial"

    The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that "when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay." Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Carringer v. Tessmer, 253 F.3d 1322, 1323 (11th Cir. 2001). Unless the district court directs entry of a final judgment, an adjudication of fewer than all the claims of all the parties is not an appealable final decision.

  5. Plump v. Riley

    CASE NO. 2:07-cv-1014-MEF (WO) (M.D. Ala. Jul. 13, 2009)   Cited 1 times

    Moreover, we stated in the Judgment the reason for our determination that there was no just reason for delay: the Supreme Court had, at the time we entered Judgment, granted certiorari in a closely related case and the interests of justice might have been served by consolidation of the cases on appeal. Therefore, we are satisfied that, at least for present purposes, we properly found that there was no just reason for delay, and properly entered a final judgment as to the Section 5 claim only. Carringer v. Tessmer, 253 F.3d 1322, 1324 (11th Cir. 2001) is not to the contrary. In Carringer, the Eleventh Circuit explained:

  6. Gasparik v. Wagner Industries, Inc.

    No. 3:05cv304/MD (N.D. Fla. Sep. 6, 2006)

    More recent authority from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, the decisions of which are binding on this court, suggests that is not the case because regardless of the reason, this court did not certify that there was no just reason for delay, and neither party asked for this certification. See, e.g., Fogade v. ENB Rovocable Trust, 263 F.3d 1274, 1296 (11th Cir. 2001) (referring to "proper Rule 54(b) certification"); Carringer v. Tessmer, 253 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 2001) (requiring district court to expressly accomplish what Rule 54(b) mandates); CSX Transportation v. City of Garden City, 235 F.3d 1325, 1327 (11th Cir. 2000) (no final appealable order existed where neither party had the court certify a summary judgment for appeal under Rule 54(b), absent some other reason why the judgment should be considered final); Wilson v. Navistar Intern. Transport. Corp., 193 F.3d 1212 (11th Cir. 1999) ("When there are multiple parties in the case, the court can enter final judgment against fewer than all of the parties only if it certifies pursuant to Rule 54(b) that "`there is no just reason for delay.'"), overruled on other grounds, Saxton v. ACF Industries, 254 F.3d 959 (11th Cir. 2001); Harris v. United States, 175 F.3d 1318, 1320 (11th Cir. 1999) (same); Schoenfeld v. Babbitt, 168 F.3d 1257, 1265 (11th Cir. 1999) (referencing "the district court's requisite Rule 54(b) certification"); State Treasurer v. State of Michigan v. Barry, 168 F.3d 8, 20 (11th Cir.

  7. APCC Servs., Inc. v. AT T Corp.

    297 F. Supp. 2d 101 (D.D.C. 2003)   Cited 27 times

    This authority, however, establishes only that a party may not, as of right, take immediate interlocutory appeal on the standing issue absent a Rule 54(b) certification from the district court, and thus, is not relevant here. See Carringer v. Tessmer, 253 F.3d 1322, 1323 (11th Cir. 2001).CONCLUSION

  8. APCC Services, Inc. v. Sprint Communications Co.

    Civil Action No. 01-0642 (ESH) (D.D.C. Dec. 17, 2003)   Cited 9 times

    This authority, however, establishes only that a party may not, as of right, take immediate interlocutory appeal on the standing issue absent a Rule 54(b) certification from the district court, and thus, is not relevant here. See Carringer v. Tessmer, 253 F.3d 1322, 1323 (11th Cir. 2001).CONCLUSION

  9. APCC SERVICES INC. v. ATT CORPORATION

    Civil Action No. 99-0696 (ESH) (D.D.C. Dec. 17, 2003)

    This authority, however, establishes only that a party may not, as of right, take immediate interlocutory appeal on the standing issue absent a Rule 54(b) certification from the district court, and thus, is not relevant here. See Carringer v. Tessmer, 253 F.3d 1322, 1323 (11th Cir. 2001).CONCLUSION

  10. CSX Transportation, Inc. v. City of Garden City

    196 F. Supp. 2d 1288 (S.D. Ga. 2002)   Cited 3 times

    14 Ga.Jur. Personal Injury and Torts ยง 33:1 (2001) (quotes and footnote omitted). Subject to the final-order doctrine, CSX, 235 F.3d at 1327-29, the Court therefore will consider F.R.Civ.P. 54(b) certification in the event of an appeal. See, e.g., Carringer v. Tessmer, 253 F.3d 1322, 1323-24 (11th Cir. 2001). IV. CONCLUSION