USCA11 Case: 23-13599 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 03/20/2024 Page: 1 of 4

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-13599 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

REINIER ANGULO, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus WORKHORSE GROUP, INC. et al.,

Defendants,

THE SHYFT GROUP USA, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee, USCA11 Case: 23-13599 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 03/20/2024 Page: 2 of 4

2 Opinion of the Court 23-13599

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.,

Respondent-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cv-22489-CMA ____________________

Before ROSENBAUM, LUCK, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Upon review of the record and the parties’ responses to the jurisdictional question, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. On October 27, 2023, appellant Reinier Angulo filed a notice of appeal challenging the district court’s February 22, 2023 order granting defendant United Parcel Service, Inc.’s (“UPS”) mo- tion to dismiss the claims against it and the district court’s October 4, 2023 order administratively closing the case. Angulo’s third amended complaint asserted claims against Workhorse Custom Chassis, LLC (“Workhorse”); Navistar, Inc. (“Navistar”); The Shyft Group USA, Inc. (“Shyft”); and UPS. Be- tween February and June 2023, the district court resolved the claims against UPS, Navistar, and Workhorse, leaving only the claims against Shyft outstanding. On October 4, 2023, the district USCA11 Case: 23-13599 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 03/20/2024 Page: 3 of 4

23-13599 Opinion of the Court 3

court issued an order administratively closing the case and direct- ing Angulo and Shyft to file a stipulation of dismissal as to the re- maining claims because they had informed the court that they reached a settlement agreement. The order also noted that, if the parties failed to complete the settlement, either party could request that the district court reopen the case. On November 18, 2023, af- ter Angulo filed his notice of appeal, a stipulation of dismissal as to all of Angulo’s claims against Shyft with prejudice was filed in the district court. The stipulation was signed only by counsel for An- gulo and Shyft. Here, Angulo’s October 27, 2023 notice of appeal was prem- ature to challenge the district court’s February 22, 2023 order grant- ing UPS’s motion to dismiss because the order administratively closing the case was not a final order, as it did not resolve the claims against Shyft and anticipated that further action from the court may be required. See 28 U.S.C. §1291; Acheron Cap., Ltd. v. Muk- amal, 22 F.4th 979, 986 (11th Cir. 2022) (“A final decision is typically one that ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute its judgment.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Martinez v. Carnival Corp., 744 F.3d 1240, 1243-44 (11th Cir. 2014) (explaining that, while we take a functional approach to finality, an order administratively closing the case is not the same as dismissing the case and is not dispositive of finality). The November 18, 2023 stipulation of dismissal also did not produce finality. That stipulation was ineffective because it was signed by fewer than all parties who had appeared in the litigation, USCA11 Case: 23-13599 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 03/20/2024 Page: 4 of 4

4 Opinion of the Court 23-13599

so Angulo’s claims against Shyft remain pending before the district court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) (providing that a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action by filing “a stipulation of dismis- sal signed by all parties who have appeared”); City of Jacksonville v. Jacksonville Hosp. Holdings, L.P., 82 F.4th 1031, 1034 (11th Cir. 2023) (holding that Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)’s signature requirement applies to all parties, including those who were previously removed from the action). Additionally, the district court did not certify its February 22, 2023 order granting UPS’s motion to dismiss or its October 4, 2023 order administratively closing the case for immediate review pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). See Supreme Fuels Trading FZE v. Sargeant, 689 F.3d 1244, 1246 (11th Cir. 2012) (providing that an order that disposes of fewer than all claims against all parties to an action is not final or immediately appealable absent certification by the district court pursuant to Rule 54(b)). For those reasons, we lack jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Acheron, 22 F.4th at 986. Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.