Larry Rice v. Interfood

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 18-3044 ___________________________

Larry Rice

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v. Interfood, Inc.; Jason Medcalf; Dirk Neerhoff; Nick Sharp; F.C.G.M. (Frank) van Stipdonk

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________

Submitted: May 31, 2019 Filed: June 7, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________

Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Larry Rice appeals after the District Court1 denied his motion to quash the collection of legal fees that the court awarded following the entry of judgment against

1 The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

him in his diversity action. We grant appellees’ motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction because the denial of his motion to quash is not a final, appealable order. See United States v. Branham, 690 F.3d 633, 635 (5th Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (holding that an order denying relief from a writ of garnishment is not a final, appealable order until the district court enters an “order directing the disposition of the property”); Reinholdson v. Minnesota, 346 F.3d 847, 849 (8th Cir. 2003) (explaining that a district court decision is final if it “ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment” (citation to quoted case omitted)). Further, his notice of appeal was untimely as to the other orders he seeks to challenge. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A); Dill v. Gen. Am. Life Ins. Co., 525 F.3d 612, 620 (8th Cir. 2008) (noting that the timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case “is a jurisdictional requirement that cannot be forfeited or waived”).

We also grant Rice’s motion to withdraw his first brief and deny as moot the remaining motions. ______________________________

-2-