the district court’s ruling resolved the entire case before it. The court ruled on the only ground of relief presented to it and concluded that the arbitrator did not resolve the question of out-of-pocket damages. It remanded the award because the arbitration panel “exceeded its powers” under 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(4). It did not determine that the award may be silent on the issue of out-of-pocket damages and defer its final ruling until the arbitrator clarified the meaning of certain sections of its opinion. The district court certainly thought that its work was done. It closed the ca'se, issued a “Final Judgment,” and did not stay the action or retain jurisdiction over the case after the remand. See Saturn Distribution Corp. v. Paramount Saturn, Ltd., 326 F.3d 684, 686-87 (5th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). Even if the district court’s ruling meant
holding that an identical or nearly identical limitation of liability clause was valid and enforceable under georgia law holding that an order which purports to become final upon the happening of an event specified in the order is not a final order and the happening of the event does not operate to render the order final holding that in producing nondiscriminatory reasons for its challenged action the employer is not obligated to support these reasons with objective evidence sufficient to satisfy the preponderance of the evidence standard holding that an order was final for these identical reasons holding for similar though not identical reasons that commodities transactions are not covered by the act