Adams v. Monumental General Cas. Co.
| Decision Date | 02 September 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 07-14547.,07-14547. |
| Citation | 541 F.3d 1276 |
| Parties | Kimberly M. ADAMS, individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MONUMENTAL GENERAL CASUALTY COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Enrique D. Arana, Markham R. Leventhal, Jorden & Burt, LLP, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.
James Darren Summerville, Michael B. Terry, Frank M. Lowrey, IV, Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore, LLP, Atlanta, GA, Charles Austin Gower, Jr., Teresa Thomas Abell, Charles A. Gower, P.C., Ben B. Philips, Columbus, GA, for Adams.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.
Before WILSON, PRYOR and COX, Circuit Judges.
Monumental General Casualty Company appeals an order that granted its motion to compel arbitration of a dispute with Kimberly Adams. Monumental complains that the district court compelled arbitration under one contract instead of two contracts. We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
When she bought a truck, Adams entered a retail installment contract to finance both the purchase of the truck and the premium for an insurance policy from Monumental. The policy insured Adams for the difference between what she would owe under the retail installment contract and what an insurer would pay for the truck if the truck was damaged beyond repair. Adams paid the loan early.
Adams filed a lawsuit against Monumental for a refund of some of the premium because she paid the loan early. The district court granted a motion filed by Monumental to compel arbitration of the dispute under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 3, 4, and to stay all judicial proceedings relating to the transaction. Both the retail installment contract and the certificate of insurance issued by Monumental included an arbitration agreement.
The district court concluded that the arbitration agreements contained in both the retail installment contract and the certificate of insurance were enforceable. The district court later denied Adams's motion for reconsideration, but the court modified its order to delete a sentence about the retail installment contract as "unnecessary dicta":
When the Court made that statement, it understood that Plaintiff was relying upon the retail installment contract, which included the arbitration clause, as an essential part of her claim. Plaintiff now represents to the Court that the retail installment contract is not essential to her claim in this case. If Plaintiff's claim is not dependent upon the retail installment contract, then that would affect the Court's analysis of Defendant's motion to compel arbitration under the retail installment contract. Accordingly, the Court hereby amends its July 17, 2007 Order by deleting that sentence which the Court considers to be dicta.
The district court stated that it was not deciding whether arbitration of Adams's complaint was required under the retail installment contract.
We are required to examine our jurisdiction sua sponte. Finn v. Prudential-Bache Sec., Inc., 821 F.2d 581, 584-85 (11th Cir.1987). We review jurisdictional issues de novo. AT&T Mobility, L.L.C. v. Nat'l Ass'n for Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc., 494 F.3d 1356, 1360 (11th Cir.2007).
We have no jurisdiction over this appeal because the district court compelled arbitration. 9 U.S.C. § 16(b)(2). Section 16 governs the appealability of interlocutory orders regarding arbitration, ConArt, Inc. v. Hellmuth, Obata + Kassabaum, Inc., 504 F.3d 1208, 1210 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Front
...court's denial of a motion to compel arbitration under 9 U.S.C. § 16 [ (a) ](1)(B).” (emphasis added)); Adams v. Monumental Gen. Cas. Co., 541 F.3d 1276, 1277 (11th Cir.2008) (“We have no jurisdiction over this appeal because the district court compelled arbitration.9 U.S.C. § 16(b)(2). Sec......
-
Drummond Co. v. Terrance P. Collingsworth, Conrad & Scherer, LLP
...we have jurisdiction to decide the appeals from the denial of Scarola's motion to quash the subpoenas. See Adams v. Monumental Gen. Cas. Co., 541 F.3d 1276, 1277 (11th Cir.2008) (noting that a court has an obligation to raise any questions about its jurisdiction). The courts of appeals "hav......
-
United States v. Odoni
...v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519, 72 S.Ct. 509, 96 L.Ed. 541 (1952).3 We review jurisdictional issues de novo. Adams v. Monumental Gen. Cas. Co., 541 F.3d 1276, 1277 (11th Cir.2008).4 None of the other language in the treaty to which Odoni points reflects an affirmative agreement between the United......
-
Florida v. Weber
...1270 (11th Cir. 2009). We examine our own jurisdiction sua sponte and review jurisdictional issues de novo. Adams v. Monumental Gen. Cas. Co., 541 F.3d 1276, 1277 (11th Cir. 2008). Generally, in a civil case, an appellant must file a notice of appeal within 30 days after entry of the judgme......
-
Appellate Practice and Procedure - Robert G. Boliek, Jr.
...Inc. v. Barth Indus., Inc., 160 F.3d 1322, 1337 (11th Cir. 1998)). 43. 9 U.S.C. Sec. 16 (2006). 44. Adams v. Monumental Gen. Cas. Co., 541 F.3d 1276, 1276-77 (11th Cir. 2008). Adams involved a transaction embracing two arbitration agreements. See id. at 1276. Interlocutory review was denied......