MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
TERRY F. MOORER, District Judge.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Request for Appointment of Umpire. Doc. 1, filed August 9, 2018. Plaintiff requests the Court to appoint an umpire pursuant to an appraisal clause in an insurance policy. Id. at 1.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff originally filed in this Court, on August 9, 2018, its Request for Appointment of Umpire. Doc. 1. Plaintiff requests the Court to appoint an umpire pursuant to the appraisal clause of an insurance policy issued by Plaintiff in favor of Defendant. Id. at 1. Defendant submitted a claim for policy benefits and a dispute arose between the parties as to the amount payable from the claimed loss. Id. Plaintiff valued the loss at $278,598.60 and Defendant valued that loss at $454,329.18. Id. at 2. Because the parties failed to agree on the amount of Defendant's loss, on May 9, 2018, Defendant invoked the appraisal clause of the policy, which is as follows:
Appraisal
If you and we fail to agree on the amount of loss, either party may make written demand for an appraisal. Upon such demand, each party must select a competent and impartial appraiser and notify the other of the appraiser's identity within 20 days after the demand is received. The appraisers will select a competent and impartial umpire. If the appraisers are unable to agree upon an umpire within 15 days, you or we can ask a judge of a court of record in the state where the residence premises is located to select an umpire.
Doc. 1-2, at 3. The parties both appointed appraisers who attempted to agree on an umpire, but were unsuccessful. Doc. 1, at 1-2. Pursuant to the policy, Plaintiff filed this action for the Court to select an umpire. Id. at 2. The Court ordered the parties to file by June 6, 2019, their briefs in support of their proffered umpires and objections to the opposing party's proffered umpires. Doc. 18. Plaintiff filed its brief on June 6, 2019. Doc. 19. As of the date of this memorandum opinion and order, Defendant has not filed his brief. See Docket Sheet.
II. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
The Court is asked to pick an umpire, who will decide between the losses that were submitted by the parties' respective appraisers. The insurance policy at issue does not prescribe any qualitifications for the prospective umpire. However, "[a]n umpire selected to arbitrate a loss should be disinterested, unprejudiced, honest, and competent." 6f-168f Appleman on Insurance Law & Practice Archive § 3928 (2nd 2011).
Plaintiff requests the Court appoint one of its proffered umpires, who include Michael B. Maddox, Phil Bernstein, and Chris Dixon. Doc. 19, at 2-3. Defendant did not submit an objection to Plaintiff's proffered umpires. See Docket Sheet. Mr. Maddox has practiced law for more than forty (40) years and his practice has been concentrated in conducting mediations and arbitrations for approximately twenty (20) years. Doc. 19-1, at 2. Mr. Maddox has also been recognized by several publications and rating organizations for his legal work. Id. Mr. Bernstein is an Alabama State Certified Residential Real Property Appriaser who has been involved in the real estate industry for more than forty (40) years and has been involved in the real estate appraisal industry for more than (30) years. Doc. 19-2, at 2. Mr. Bernstein has owned his own appraisal company for more than twenty (20) years and has completed extensive real estate appraisal course work. Id. Mr. Dixon is an Alabama State Certified Residential Real Property Appriaser who has been a residential appraiser for more than thirty (30) years, is president of his appraisal firm, and has completed extensive real estate appraisal course work. Doc. 19-3, at 2. Mr. Dixon also is a qualified appraiser for many banks, mortgages companies, credit unions, appraisal management companies, and relocation companies. Id. at 3.
Defendant identified umpire nominees in his Motion to Dismiss and Response to Request for Appointment of Umpire, who include Thomas Kent Garrett, Randall B. James, the Honorable Eugene W. Reese, and the Honorable Charles Price. Doc. 5, at 3-4. Mr. Garrett is an attorney who was admitted to the bar in 1980 and practices in the areas of automobile product liability, insurance defense, automobile insurance defense, worker's compensation, insurance bad faith, pharmacist liability, and product liability. Id. at 2-3. Mr. Garrett is a member of the Montgomery County Bar Association, American Bar Association, Alabama State Bar, Florida Bar, and Alabama Defense Lawyers Association. Id. at 3. Mr. James is an attorney who has practiced for more than thirty (30) years and his practice areas include mediation/arbitration, automobile accidents, product liability, wrongful death, dram shop, bad faith, and worker's compensation. Id. Since 2001, Mr. James has been a mediator. Id. Mr. James also has been involved in his community through many organizations. Id. Judge Reese was admitted to the bar in 1982 and was with the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit for the State of Alabama until he retired in January 2017. Id. at 3-4. Judge Price was admitted to the bar in 1972 and was an assistant district attorney, district attorney, and took the bench for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit for the State of Alabama, from which he retired in 2015. Id. at 4.
Plaintiff objects to Defendant's proffered umpires because it argues they do not have as much experience with the relevant subject matter as its proffered umpires and they do not have any experience with real estate or valuing appraisals.
As to the necessary qualities for an umpire-disinterested, unprejudiced, honest, and competent-the Court does not have a reason to question any of the proferred umpires as to the first three qualities based on the information before the Court. They all appear to meet those criteria. As to whether the proffered umpires are competent, all also appear to be competent. The most experienced candidates with regard to the relevant subject matter-real estate appraisal-are Mr. Bernstein and Mr. Dixon. Therefore, based on years of experience, completed real estate appraisal course work, and qualifications, the Court selects Mr. Dixon as umpire in this matter.
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Plaintiff's proffered umpire, Chris Dixon, is hereby APPOINTED as umpire in this matter. The CLERK OF COURT is DIRECTED to close this case.
DONE and ORDERED.
CIVIL APPEALS JURISDICTION CHECKLIST
1. Appealable Orders: Courts of Appeals have jurisdiction conferred and strictly limited by statute:
(a) Appeals from final orders pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291: Final orders and judgments of district courts, or final orders of bankruptcy courts which have been appealed to and fully resolved by a district court under 28 U.S.C. § 158, generally are appealable. A final decision is one that "ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment." Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Mestre, 701 F.2d 1365, 1368 (11th Cir. 1983) (citing Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233, 65 S.Ct. 631, 633, 89 S.Ct. 911 (1945)). A magistrate judge's report and recommendation is not final and appealable until judgment thereon is entered by a district court judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Perez-Priego v. Alachua County Clerk of Court, 148 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir. 1998). However, under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(3), the Courts of Appeals have jurisdiction over an appeal from a final judgment entered by a magistrate judge, but only if the parties consented to the magistrate's jurisdiction. McNab v. J & J Marine, Inc., 240 F.3d 1326, 1327-28 (11th Cir. 2001).
(b) In cases involving multiple parties or multiple claims, a judgment as to fewer than all parties or all claims is not a final, appealable decision unless the district court has certified the judgment for immediate review under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). Williams v. Bishop, 732 F.2d 885, 885-86 (11th Cir. 1984). A judgment which resolves all issues except matters, such as attorneys' fees and costs, that are collateral to the merits, is immediately appealable. Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 486 U.S. 196, 201, 108 S.Ct. 1717, 1721-22, 100 L.Ed.2d 178 (1988); LaChance v. Duffy's Draft House, Inc., 146 F.3d 832, 837 (11th Cir. 1998).
(c) Appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a): Under this section, appeals are permitted from the following types of orders:
i. Orders granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions, or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions; However, interlocutory appeals from orders denying temporary restraining orders are not permitted. McDougald v. Jenson, 786 F.2d 1465, 1472-73 (11th Cir. 1986);
ii. Orders appointing receivers or refusing to wind up receiverships; and
iii. Orders determining the rights and liabilities of parties in admiralty cases.
(d) Appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and Fed.R.App.P. 5: The certification specified in 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) must be obtained before a petition for permission to appeal is filed in the Court of Appeals. The district court's denial of a motion for certification is not itself appealable.
(e) Appeals pursuant to judicially created exceptions to the finality rule: Limited exceptions are discussed in cases including, but not limited to: Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 1225-26, 93 S.Ct. 1528 (1949); Atlantic Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Blythe Eastman Paine Webber, Inc., 890 F.2d 371, 376 (11th Cir. 1989); Gillespie v. United States Steel Corp., 379 U.S. 148, 157, 85 S.Ct. 308, 312, 13 L.Ed.2d 199 (1964).
2. Time for Filing: The timely filing of a notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional. Rinaldo v. Corbett, 256 F.3d 1276, 1278 (11th Cir. 2001). In civil cases, Fed.R.App.P. 4(a) and (c) set the following time limits:
(a) Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1): A notice of appeal in compliance with the requirements set forth in Fed.R.App.P. 3 must be filed in the district court within 30 days after the order or judgment appealed from is entered. However, if the United States or an officer or agency thereof is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed in the district court within 60 days after such entry. THE NOTICE MUST BE RECEIVED AND FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT NO LATER THAN THE LAST DAY OF THE APPEAL PERIOD — no additional days are provided for mailing. Special filing provisions for inmates are discussed below.
(b) Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(3): "If one party timely files a notice of appeal, any other party may file a notice of appeal within 14 days after the date when the first notice was filed, or within the time otherwise prescribed by this Rule 4(a), whichever period ends later."
(c) Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(4): If any party makes a timely motion in the district court under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure of a type specified in this rule, the time for appeal for all parties runs from the date of entry of the order disposing of the last such timely filed motion.
(d) Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(5) and 4(a)(6): Under certain limited circumstances, the district court may extend or reopen the time to file a notice of appeal. Under Rule 4(a)(5), the time may be extended if a motion for an extension is filed within 30 days after expiration of the time otherwise provided to file a notice of appeal, upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause. Under Rule 4(a)(6), the time to file an appeal may be reopened if the district court finds, upon motion, that the following conditions are satisfied: the moving party did not receive notice of the entry of the judgment or order within 21 days after entry; the motion is filed within 180 days after the judgment or order is entered or within 14 days after the moving party receives notice, whichever is earlier; and no party would be prejudiced by the reopening.
(e) Fed.R.App.P. 4(c): If an inmate confined to an institution files a notice of appeal in either a civil case or a criminal case, the notice of appeal is timely if it is deposited in the institution's internal mail system on or before the last day for filing. Timely filing may be shown by a declaration in compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 1746 or a notarized statement, either of which must set forth the date of deposit and state that first-class postage has been prepaid.
3. Format of the notice of appeal: Form 1, Appendix of Forms to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, is a suitable format. See also Fed.R.App.P. 3(c). A pro se notice of appeal must be signed by the appellant.
4. Effect of a notice of appeal: A district court lacks jurisdiction, i.e., authority, to act after the filing of a timely notice of appeal, except for actions in aid of appellate jurisdiction or to rule on a timely motion of the type specified in Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(4).
