CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel. PAUL DORSA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MIRACA LIFE SCIENCES, INC.,
Defendant-Appellant.
   No. 20-5007
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville.
No. 3:13-cv-01025—Bernard A. Friedman, District Judge.
Argued: October 22, 2020
Decided and Filed: December 30, 2020
Before: BATCHELDER, MOORE, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

ROGERS, Circuit Judge. Paul Dorsa filed suit under the False Claims Act against Miraca Life Sciences, Inc., alleging unlawful retaliation. Miraca sought to dismiss the retaliation claim because Dorsa—a former Miraca executive—had agreed to binding arbitration as a provision of his employment agreement with the company. The district court denied Miraca’s motion to dismiss because it found that the arbitration clause did not cover Dorsa’s retaliation claim. Miraca appeals the district court’s order and Dorsa seeks to dismiss the appeal. Because the district court’s order was not a final order, and because the narrow provision of the Federal Arbitration Act that authorizes immediate appeals of certain interlocutory orders does not apply here, the court lacks jurisdiction.