USCA11 Case: 23-13500 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 01/19/2024 Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-13500 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

TOMMY D. LAY, II, Plaintiff-Appellant, BRYON DAWSON, Plaintiff, versus STORM SMART BUILDING SYSTEMS, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________ USCA11 Case: 23-13500 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 01/19/2024 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 23-13500

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 2:20-cv-00746-NPM ____________________

Before WILSON, BRANCH, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Tommy D. Lay, II, proceeding pro se, appeals from the dis- trict court’s September 22, 2023, order granting his counsel’s mo- tion to withdraw. A jurisdictional question (“JQ”) asked the parties to address the nature of our jurisdiction over this appeal, but the appellee did not respond to the JQ. Upon review of Lay’s response to the JQ and the record, we DISMISS this appeal for lack of juris- diction. The September 22 order is not final because all claims against Storm Smart Building Systems, Inc. have not been resolved. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; CSX Transp. Inc. v. City of Garden City, 235 F.3d 1325, 1327 (11th Cir. 2000). The February 20, 2023, stipulation of voluntary dismissal; the February 24, 2023, order recognizing that stipulation; and the June 20, 2023, stipulation of voluntary dismissal are all invalid because they each seek to dismiss a single claim against Storm Smart rather than the entire action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a); Esteva v. Ubs Fin. Servs. Inc. (In re Esteva), 60 F.4th 664, 675 (11th Cir. 2023); Rosell v. VMSB, LLC., 67 F.4th 1141, 1144 (11th Cir. 2023). And neither stipulation was signed by all parties who had USCA11 Case: 23-13500 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 01/19/2024 Page: 3 of 3

23-13500 Opinion of the Court 3

appeared in the action. See City of Jacksonville v. Jacksonville Hospi- tality Holdings, L.P., 82 F.4th 1031, 1038-39 (11th Cir. 2023). Contrary to Lay’s contentions, the order granting counsel’s motion to withdraw is not an immediately appealable injunctive order. See § 1292(a)(1); Alabama v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 424 F.3d 1117, 1128 (11th Cir. 2005); United States v. Bowman, 341 F.3d 1228, 1236 (11th Cir. 2003). Nor is it immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) or the collateral order doctrine. Cf. Richardson- Merrell, Inc. v. Koller, 472 U.S. 424, 440 (1985) (concluding that “or- ders disqualifying counsel in a civil case are not collateral orders subject to immediate appeal”); 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (requiring a dis- trict judge to certify, in writing, an order for immediate appeal un- der this subsection). All pending motions are DENIED as moot.