Jason Lambro, individually and on behalf of sim- ilarly situated individuals v. United States

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
JASON LAMBRO, individually and on behalf of sim-
ilarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff
CHARLES NIXON,
Movant-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2025-1825
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:21-cv-01447-ZNS, Judge Zachary N. Somers.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
Before TARANTO, CUNNINGHAM, and STARK, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM.
O R D E R
Case: 25-1825 Document: 12 Page: 1 Filed: 08/11/2025

-- 1 of 3 --

LAMBRO v. US 2
The United States moves to dismiss this appeal for lack
of jurisdiction or, alternatively, for summary affirmance.
ECF No. 7. Charles Nixon opposes the motion.
Jason Lambro brought an individual and collective ac-
tion against U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM) alleg-
ing violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Relevant here, Mr. Lambro moved for leave to file a third
amended complaint seeking to add Mr. Nixon, a former
USAGM worker, as an additional plaintiff. While that mo-
tion was pending, the government moved for judgment on
the pleadings or, alternatively, for summary judgment.
On April 1, 2025, the Court of Federal Claims granted
judgment in the government’s favor on Mr. Lambro’s col-
lective action claim, denied the motion to amend the com-
plaint to add Mr. Nixon, and allowed Mr. Lambro to file an
amended complaint containing only his individual FLSA
claims. Mr. Lambro and Mr. Nixon subsequently filed a
motion to certify the April 1st Order for interlocutory ap-
peal or alternatively to enter final judgment as to Mr.
Nixon’s claims under Rule 54(b). That motion remains
pending. On May 29, 2025, Mr. Nixon filed an appeal from
the April 1st order, characterizing it as “a constructive dis-
missal of [his] claims against USAGM.” Appx27.
This court’s jurisdiction generally extends only to a “fi-
nal decision” of the Court of Federal Claims, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1295(a)(3), i.e., one that “ends the litigation on the merits
and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judg-
ment,” Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233 (1945).
“[A]n order denying a motion for leave to amend a com-
plaint to add the claims of additional plaintiffs is not a final
order[.]” In re Wolfe, 111 F.3d 142, 1997 WL 173205, at *2
(Fed. Cir. Mar. 20, 1997) (citing Kahn v. Chase Manhattan
Bank, N.A., 91 F.3d 385, 387–88 (2d Cir. 1996)). Since the
trial court has not otherwise entered an appealable deci-
sion and the litigation is still ongoing, the appeal is prem-
ature.
Case: 25-1825 Document: 12 Page: 2 Filed: 08/11/2025

-- 2 of 3 --

LAMBRO v. US 3
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) ECF No. 7 is granted to the extent that the appeal
is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
(2) Each side to bear its own costs.
August 11, 2025
Date
FOR THE COURT
Case: 25-1825 Document: 12 Page: 3 Filed: 08/11/2025

-- 3 of 3 --