# Nicholas Harding v. Google LLC

> Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · September 5, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9838164

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
- **Decided:** September 5, 2023
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Nature of suit:** NEW
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9838164

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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”
- 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)

## Opinion text

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[DO NOT PUBLISH]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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9838164. Public record. Not legal advice.