Brian Evans v. StubHub, Inc.

USCA11 Case: 26-12539 Document: 10-1 Date Filed: 09/14/2026 Page: 1 of 2

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 26-12539 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ BRIAN EVANS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus STUBHUB, INC., Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 0:25-cv-61708-RS ____________________ Before JILL PRYOR, LAGOA and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: Brian Evans, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for relief from its previous order compelling arbitration and staying proceedings.

USCA11 Case: 26-12539 Document: 10-1 Date Filed: 09/14/2026 Page: 2 of 2

2 Opinion of the Court 26-12539 The appealed order is not final because it did not end the litigation on the merits or resolve any of Evans’s claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (providing jurisdiction over “final decisions of the dis- trict courts”); Supreme Fuels Trading FZE v. Sargeant, 689 F.3d 1244, 1246 (11th Cir. 2012) (explaining that an order disposing of fewer than all claims of all parties is not final).

Further, the appealed order is not an order from which the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) provides for appeal. See 9 U.S.C. § 16(b)(1)-(3) (providing that an appeal may not be taken from an in- terlocutory order compelling arbitration, directing arbitration to proceed, or staying an action pending arbitration); Am. Express Fin.

Advisors, Inc. v. Makarewicz, 122 F.3d 936, 939 (11th Cir. 1997) (dis- missing appeal of an order compelling arbitration, staying proceed- ings, and administratively closing a case).

Moreover, the order is not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine because judicially-created doctrines do not permit an appeal of an order specifically prohibited by § 16(b).

See ConArt, Inc. v. Hellmuth, Obata + Kassabaum, Inc., 504 F.3d 1208, 1210-11 (11th Cir. 2007) (observing that permitting an appeal that § 16(b) specifically prohibits “would amount to using a judge-made doctrine to erase an unequivocal congressional command”).

Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction.