Meryem Bentaous v. Asset Acceptance, LLC

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-2266

MERYEM BENTAOUS, Individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC; FULTON FRIEDMAN & GULLACE LLP,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:13-cv-03314-JFM)

Submitted: June 29, 2015 Decided: August 27, 2015

Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

E. David Hoskins, Max F. Brauer, THE LAW OFFICES OF DAVID
HOSKINS, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Terri S.
Reiskin, DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC, Washington, D.C.; Cynthia Fulton,
Jason P. Verhagen, FULTON FRIEDMAN & GULLACE, L.L.P., Phoenix,
Arizona, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Meryem Bentaous seeks to appeal the district court's order

compelling arbitration and staying and administratively closing

the action pending resolution of any arbitration proceedings.

Our jurisdiction to review cases originating in the district

court is limited to final decisions and certain specified

interlocutory orders. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292 (2012); Cohen v.

Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-47 (1949).

Section 16 of the Federal Arbitration Act provides that “[a]n

appeal may be taken from . . . a final decision with respect to

an arbitration that is subject to this title[,]” or from

interlocutory orders denying arbitration, but an appeal

generally “may not be taken from an interlocutory order . . .

granting a stay of any action” referred to arbitration, or

“directing arbitration to proceed.” 9 U.S.C. § 16; see In re

Pisgah Contractors, Inc., 117 F.3d 133, 135 (4th Cir. 1997).

A “final decision” for purposes of § 16 is one that “ends

the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing more for the

court to do but execute the judgment.” Green Tree Fin.

Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79, 86 (2000) (internal

quotation marks omitted). Therefore, where a district court

orders arbitration and dismisses an action, “leaving the court

nothing to do but execute the judgment,” the order is a final,

appealable order. Id. By contrast, where the district court

2
orders arbitration and enters “a stay instead of a

dismissal . . . that order [is not] appealable,” as it is

interlocutory. Id. at 87 n.2.

As the district court’s order compelling arbitration stayed

the action rather than dismissing it, that order is not a final,

appealable order. In addition, the fact that the court

administratively closed the case following the stay does not

render the order final. Penn-Am. Ins. Co. v. Mapp, 521 F.3d

290, 295 (4th Cir. 2008) (“Put simply, an otherwise non-final

order does not become final because the district court

administratively closed the case after issuing the order.”). We

therefore lack jurisdiction over the appeal.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. 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 in the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3