USCA4 Appeal: 24-1579 Doc: 29 Filed: 12/20/2024 Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1579

OVIS MATAMOROS CANALES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

OPW FUELING COMPONENTS LLC,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge; Robert T. Numbers, II, Magistrate Judge. (5:22-cv-00459-BO-RJ)

Submitted: December 12, 2024 Decided: December 20, 2024

Before WILKINSON and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Gilda A. Hernandez, Hannah B. Simmons, Matthew S. Marlowe, LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC, Cary, North Carolina, for Appellant. David I. Klass, FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP, Charlotte North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1579 Doc: 29 Filed: 12/20/2024 Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:

Ovis Matamoros Canales filed a class action complaint against his former employer,

OPW Fueling Components LLC (“OPW”), for alleged violations of the Fair Labor

Standards Act,

(Count 1), and the North Carolina Wage and Hour

Act,

to -25.25 (2023) (Count 2). His complaint also included

individual claims for an alleged violation of the North Carolina Retaliatory Employment

Discrimination Act,

to -245 (2023) (Count 3), intentional

infliction of emotional distress (Count 4), and wrongful discharge (Count 5). Counts 3

through 5 were based, in part, on allegations about the death of one of Canales’s coworkers

at OPW, Narcisco Solis.

OPW sent Canales’s counsel a letter accompanied by a draft motion for sanctions

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c)(2). OPW advised that several of the

allegations related to Solis’s death were inaccurate and that it would move for sanctions if

Canales did not withdraw those factual allegations and Counts 3 through 5 within 21 days.

The next day, Canales filed his First Amended Complaint. Because Canales failed to

correct some of the factual allegations related to Solis’s death and did not withdraw

Counts 3 through 5, OPW sent Canales’s counsel another letter and a draft motion for

sanctions pursuant to Rule 11(c)(2). OPW again warned that it would move for sanctions

if Canales did not withdraw the false allegations and Counts 3 through 5 within 21 days.

Canales did not amend his complaint. Accordingly, OPW moved for sanctions, requesting

dismissal of Counts 3 through 5 and an order directing Canales to pay OPW’s reasonable

fees and expenses related to the motion.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1579 Doc: 29 Filed: 12/20/2024 Pg: 3 of 5

The magistrate judge granted OPW’s motion for sanctions in part. The magistrate

judge declined to dismiss any of Canales’s claims but barred him from relying on certain

factual allegations related to Solis’s death. The magistrate judge also ordered Canales’s

counsel to pay OPW’s reasonable fees and expenses related to the motion, up to $10,000.

Canales moved for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). The

district court denied the motion. And Canales now seeks to appeal that order and the

magistrate judge’s original order granting OPW’s motion for sanctions in part. *

The orders Canales seeks to appeal are not final orders. See Hixson v. Moran,

, 301 (4th Cir. 2021) (“A final, appealable decision ends the litigation on the

merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.” (internal quotation

marks omitted)). Canales, however, argues that we have jurisdiction to consider his appeal

under Rule 54(b).

In addition to providing authority for district courts to reconsider nonfinal decisions,

“Rule 54(b) provides a vehicle by which a district court can certify for immediate appeal a

judgment that disposes of fewer than all of the claims or resolves the controversy as to

fewer than all of the parties.” Hunter v. Town of Mocksville,

(4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). Specifically, the rule provides that:

When an action presents more than one claim for relief—whether as a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim—or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more,

* Although the district court has stayed its order denying Canales’s motion for reconsideration, the litigation continues. Among other developments, Canales has filed a Second Amended Complaint.

3 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1579 Doc: 29 Filed: 12/20/2024 Pg: 4 of 5

but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Accordingly, “[i]n certifying a judgment for appeal under

Rule 54(b), the district court must first determine whether the judgment is final and second,

determine whether there is no just reason for the delay in the entry of judgment.” Kinsale

Ins. Co. v. JDBC Holdings, Inc.,

, 873 (4th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks

omitted). A judgment is “final” within the meaning of Rule 54(b) if “it is an ultimate

disposition of an individual claim entered in the court of a multiple claims action.”

(internal quotation marks omitted). “In determining whether there is no just reason for the

delay in the entry of judgment, the district court [must] conduct a case-specific inquiry,

keeping in mind that this inquiry is tilted from the start against the fragmentation of

appeals.”

(cleaned up).

Here, the district court did not certify the orders for immediate appeal under

Rule 54(b). Nor could it because the orders did not resolve any claims between the parties.

In denying Canales’s motion for reconsideration, the district court affirmed the magistrate

judge’s award of sanctions, which did not resolve any claims but, instead, prohibited

Canales from relying on certain factual allegations when asserting his claims. Because it

did not enter a final judgment resolving any claims between the parties, the district court

necessarily did not find that there was no just reason for delaying the entry of a final

judgment. Finally, even if Rule 54(b) certification were appropriate, we may not divine

the district court’s intent from the record, as Canales contends. Rather, we require a district

4 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1579 Doc: 29 Filed: 12/20/2024 Pg: 5 of 5

court to “state [its] findings on the record or in its order” when certifying an order for

immediate appeal under Rule 54(b).

(internal quotation marks omitted).

Accordingly, we dismiss this interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED

5