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”
How later courts described this case
- 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”
- dismissing for lack of jurisdiction appeal of an order compelling arbitration, stay- ing proceedings, and administratively closing the case
- 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)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The 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[DO NOT PUBLISH]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.