USCA11 Case: 24-10133 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 04/04/2024 Page: 1 of 3

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 24-10133 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

FLA MORTGAGE CAPITAL CORPORATION, Plaintiff, NON PERFORMING LLC, OSLO GROUP LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellees, versus JOHN E. TYRE, a.k.a. John Edwin Tyre II, KAY TYRE, a.k.a. Lanita K. Tyre, USCA11 Case: 24-10133 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 04/04/2024 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 24-10133

Defendants-Appellants.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 3:22-cv-01012-BJD-PDB ____________________

Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Upon review of the record and the responses to the jurisdic- tional question, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. Appellants challenge the December 12 and 13, 2023 order and judg- ment in this foreclosure action granting the plaintiffs summary judgment and entering judgment against the appellants in the amount of $256,466.42. However, the December 12 order in- structed the plaintiffs to file a proposed final judgment of foreclo- sure, and the district court has not yet entered that judgment or otherwise foreclosed the plaintiffs’ security interest, ordered the sale of the relevant property if the monetary judgment is not paid, or established the terms for any such sale. Thus, the December 2023 order and judgment are not yet final because there remain outstanding proceedings to fully resolve the plaintiff’s complaint for foreclosure. See CSX Transp., Inc. v. City of Garden City, 235 F.3d 1325, 1327 (11th Cir. 2000); Burlington, Cedar Rapid & N. Ry. Co. v. Simmons, 123 U.S. 52, 54-56 (1887) (explaining USCA11 Case: 24-10133 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 04/04/2024 Page: 3 of 3

24-10133 Opinion of the Court 3

that, in a foreclosure action, the proceedings are not final if there is no order of sale); see also Citibank, N.A. v. Data Lease Fin. Corp., 645 F.2d 333, 337 (5th Cir. Unit B May 1981). The order and judgment are not appealable under the doctrine of practical finality for the same reasons and because there has not been a showing of irrepa- rable harm. See Burlington, Cedar Rapid & N. Ry. Co., 123 U.S. at 54-56; Acheron Cap., Ltd. v. Mukamal, 22 F.4th 979, 991-92 (11th Cir. 2022).