Gold Coast Prop. Mgmt. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 27098 (11th Cir. Sept. 6, 2019):

THE COURT:

This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction. The district court's June 14, 2019 order granting the motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings and denying the motion to remand to the state court is not a final and appealable order, and we therefore lack jurisdiction over [*2]  this appeal. See 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(3), (b)(1)-(3) (providing for appeals from final decisions with respect to arbitration and stating that an appeal may not be taken from an interlocutory order staying an action pending arbitration, directing arbitration to proceed, or compelling arbitration, absent certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b)); Hill v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., 398 F.3d 1286, 1288 (11th Cir. 2005) (stating that a district court's decision compelling arbitration is appealable when it disposes of the entire case and leaves no part pending before it); Woodard v. STP Corp., 170 F.3d 1043, 1044 (11th Cir. 1999) (explaining that the denial of a motion to remand is an interlocutory order and is reviewable only after final judgment or upon certification under § 1292(b)); Am. Express Fin. Advisors, Inc. v. Makarewicz, 122 F.3d 936, 939 (11th Cir. 1997) (dismissing appeal of order compelling arbitration, staying proceedings, and administratively closing the case); see also Green Tree Fin. Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79, 86, 87 n.2, 121 S. Ct. 513, 148 L. Ed. 2d 373 (2000) (concluding that § 16(a)(3) uses the same concept of finality as 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and noting that if the district court had entered a stay rather than a dismissal, the order would not be appealable, per 9 U.S.C. § 16(b)(1)).

All pending motions are DENIED as moot. No motion for reconsideration may be filed unless it complies with the timing and other requirements of 11th Cir. R. 27-2 and all other applicable rules.