TIPPET v. US , No. 24-1087 (Fed. Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 24-1087 Document: 7 Page: 1 Filed: 03/25/2024 NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ SHELLY TIPPET, ERIC M. ROBINSON, JR., REAL RESULTS ABA SERVICES, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants REBECCA BOROKINI, Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee ______________________ 2024-1087 ______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:23-cv-00434-TMD, Judge Thompson M. Dietz. ______________________ Before DYK, WALLACH, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. ORDER The appellants identified themselves, among others, as plaintiffs in a complaint filed at the United States Court of Federal Claims. The trial court dismissed Real Results ABA Services, LLC (“Real Results”) and certified that judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Rules of the Court of Case: 24-1087 Document: 7 Page: 2 Filed: 03/25/2024 2 TIPPET v. US Federal Claims (“RCFC”). This appeal followed. Because no attorney had entered an appearance on behalf of Real Results and because there appeared to be no appealable judgment except as to Real Results, the court directed the parties to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed. None of the appellants responded to that order. The United States responds urging dismissal. We agree with the government that this appeal should be dismissed. “A corporation, partnership, organization, or other legal entity must be represented by counsel before this court.” Fed. Cir. R. 47.3(a). In light of that rule, our show cause order warned Real Results that failure of counsel to file an entry an appearance on its behalf within 30 days would result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. Because no entry of appearance has been entered, we dismiss the appeal. As to the other plaintiffs, their claims remain pending before the trial court. Until such time that the trial court issues a final judgment resolving all claims or issues a judgment under Rule 54 as to the plaintiffs, this court lacks jurisdiction over their claims. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The appeal is dismissed. (2) Each party shall bear its own costs. FOR THE COURT March 25, 2024 Date
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
