Corry E. Pearson v. Equifax Information Services LLC

USCA11 Case: 26-10713 Document: 13-1 Date Filed: 04/14/2026 Page: 1 of 3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 26-10713 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ CORRY E. PEARSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES LLC, EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., TRANS UNION, LLC, CITIBANK, N.A., UNITED COLLECTION BUREAU, INC., Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 9:25-cv-81124-AMC ____________________ USCA11 Case: 26-10713 Document: 13-1 Date Filed: 04/14/2026 Page: 2 of 3 2 Opinion of the Court 26-10713 Before ROSENBAUM, LAGOA, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic- tion. Corry Pearson, proceeding pro se, filed this action alleging eight claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681- 1681x. He alleged that the first four of the five defendants, three consumer reporting agencies and a collection company, had inac- curately reported a tradeline associated with an account that Pear- son had with the fifth defendant, CitiBank N.A. (“CitiBank”). In an order entered on March 3, 2026, the district court granted the first four defendants’ joint motion to dismiss as to Counts I-VI and VIII and terminated them from the case. This left Count VII against CitiBank still pending. Pearson appealed the March 3 order. Because it did not dispose of all claims of all defendants, the court’s March 3 order was not final. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292; Supreme Fuels Trading FZE v. Sargeant, 689 F.3d 1244, 1245-46 (11th Cir. 2012) (explaining that an order that disposes of fewer than all the claims of all parties to an action is not final or immediately ap- pealable unless the district court certifies the order for immediate review pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) (providing for entry of judgment as to fewer than all claims or par- ties). Further, the March 3 order is not an appealable interlocutory order because the district court did not certify its order as immedi- ately appealable under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) or 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), the order did not resolve an issue completely separate from the merits, and the order is effectively reviewable upon appeal from USCA11 Case: 26-10713 Document: 13-1 Date Filed: 04/14/2026 Page: 3 of 3 26-10713 Opinion of the Court 3 the final judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b); Plaintiff A v. Schair, 744 F.3d 1247, 1252-53 (11th Cir. 2014) (explain- ing that, under the collateral order doctrine, an order that does not conclude the litigation may be appealed if it resolves an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action and would be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment).