the court____”). “A ‘final decision’ is one by which a district court disassociates itself from a case.” Gelboim v. Bank of Am. Corp., — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 897, 902, 190 L.Ed.2d 789 (2015) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, “[a]n order is final ... when it ends the litigation and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.” Elizondo v. Green, 671 F.3d 506, 509 (5th Cir.2012). With this standard in mind, it is evident that this issue is difficult to resolve. Both parties raise colorable, yet competing arguments supporting finality and non-finality, On the one hand, as the district court emphasized, the language of the arbitration award itself suggests that the award is final. See Pujol v. Shearson/Am. Express, Inc., 829 F.2d 1201, 1206 (1st Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). The award states that “Vocada shall take
holding a stay final and appealable when the state decision would constitute res judicata as to at least the two major issues in the federal suit holding that although party participated in arbitration even presenting argument on merits it had not waived its objection to arbitrators jurisdiction because it consistently objected to arbitrators jurisdiction throughout proceedings holding that an arbitrators award should have been vacated holding that a court reviewing an arbitrators award in an act 111 grievance arbitration involves questions regarding 1 the jurisdiction of the arbitrator 2 the regularity of the proceedings 3 an excess of the arbitrators powers and 4 deprivation of constitutional rights holding that the arbitrators decision had res judicata effect even when the arbitrators failed to make detailed supporting findings when the decision firmly stated that it represented a full and final settlement of the matter as a whole