Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion The text of this document was obtained by analyzing a scanned document and may have typos.

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 11, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Microtech Knives, Inc. v. Jon Janecek

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 26-10096
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Nature of Suit: NEW

• Opinion

• Authorities (3)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

USCA11 Case: 26-10096 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 03/11/2026 Page: 1 of 3

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit

No. 26-10096
Non-Argument Calendar

MICROTECH KNIVES, INC.,
Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellant,
versus

OUTDOORS ONLINE, LLC,
Defendant-Cross Claimant-Appellee,
JON JANECEK,
Defendant-Counter Claimant
- Cross Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
D.C. Docket No. 1:23-cv-04381-VMC

Before JORDAN, BRASHER, and KIDD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
USCA11 Case: 26-10096 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 03/11/2026 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 26-10096

This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of
jurisdiction.
Plaintiff Microtech Knives, Inc. (“Microtech”) appeals from
the district court’s summary judgment entered in favor of
Outdoors Online, LLC (“Outdoors”), one of two defendants in this
action. The other defendant, Jon Janecek, asserted counterclaims
against Microtech.
The appealed judgment is not final because Microtech’s
claims against Janecek and Janecek’s counterclaims remain
unresolved. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; CSX Transp., Inc. v. City of Garden
City, 235 F.3d 1325, 1327 (11th Cir. 2000) (explaining that a final
judgment ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for
the district court to do but execute the judgment); Supreme Fuels
Trading FZE v. Sargeant, 689 F.3d 1244, 1246 (11th Cir. 2012)
(explaining that an order disposing of fewer than all claims is not
final). Microtech and Janecek’s stipulation of voluntary dismissal
as to the claims between them was ineffective to terminate those
claims because the stipulation was not signed by Outdoors, who
appeared in the action before the stipulation was filed. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii); City of Jacksonville v. Jacksonville Hosp. Holdings,
L.P., 82 F.4th 1031, 1038 (11th Cir. 2023) (holding that a stipulation
of voluntary dismissal requires a signature from all parties who
have appeared, including dismissed parties, to be effective).
Because Microtech’s claims against Janecek and Janecek’s
counterclaims remain pending, the judgment did not end the
USCA11 Case: 26-10096 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 03/11/2026 Page: 3 of 3

26-10096 Opinion of the Court 3

litigation on the merits, and we lack jurisdiction to review it. See
Sargeant, 689 F.3d at 1246.