Group One Ltd. v. Gte Gmbh, Ralf Weigel

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
GROUP ONE LTD.,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
GTE GMBH, RALF WEIGEL,
Defendants
UNITED STATES TENNIS ASSOCIATION,
INCORPORATED,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2022-1602
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York in No. 1:20-cv-02205-MKB-
JRC, Chief Judge Margo K. Brodie.
______________________
Before D YK, REYNA, and T ARANTO, Circuit Judges.
REYNA, Circuit Judge.
O R D E R
Group One Ltd. seeks to appeal from the district court’s
order denying its request to enforce a temporary restrain-
ing order and hold a non-party, the United States Tennis
Association, Incorporated, in civil contempt. Having
Case: 22-1602 Document: 18 Page: 1 Filed: 09/26/2022

-- 1 of 3 --

GROUP ONE LTD. v. GTE GMBH 2
received Group One’s response to this court’s July 6, 2022
show cause order, we now dismiss this appeal.
Generally, this court has jurisdiction over only “final
decision[s]” of the district courts. 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
The Supreme Court “long has stated that as a general rule
a district court’s decision is appealable under [§ 1295(a)(1)]
only when the decision ‘ends the litigation on the merits
and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judg-
ment.’” Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp.,
485 U.S. 271, 275 (1988) (quoting Catlin v. United States,
324 U.S. 229, 233 (1945)). A denial of a motion for con-
tempt while the case is still ongoing generally fails to end
the litigation on the merits and is not immediately appeal-
able. Cf. Doyle v. London Guar. & Accident Co., 204 U.S.
599, 603 (1907) (noting that a prejudgment civil contempt
order involving a party generally is not immediately ap-
pealable).
Group One cites no contrary authority that allows a
party to appeal (pre-judgment) from denial of civil con-
tempt. It cites only decisions authorizing a non-party to
appeal (pre-judgment) from imposition of civil contempt.
The rationale for allowing non-parties to appeal in such cir-
cumstances is that a non-party contemnor “has no right to
appeal from the entry of final judgment,” FTC v. Zurixx, 26
F.4th 1172, 1177 (10th Cir. 2022) (citing Bessette v. W.B.
Conkey Co., 194 U.S. 324, 329–30 (1904)), and “for the non-
party, the adjudication in contempt usually is the ‘final de-
cision,’” Clev. Hair Clinic, Inc. v. Puig, 106 F.3d 165, 167
(7th Cir. 1997). Group One has failed to show how that
underlying rationale would justify a pre-judgment appeal
from a party that may seek appellate review of the district
court’s order after final judgment in the case.
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The appeal is dismissed.
Case: 22-1602 Document: 18 Page: 2 Filed: 09/26/2022

-- 2 of 3 --

GROUP ONE LTD. v. GTE GMBH 3
(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
September 26, 2022
Date
F OR THE COURT
/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court
Case: 22-1602 Document: 18 Page: 3 Filed: 09/26/2022

-- 3 of 3 --