
    Kathryn J. GILLETTE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GAMING ENTERTAINMENT (INDIANA) d/b/a Rising Star Casino, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-3662
    United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
    
      Submitted  February 21, 2017
    Decided May 16, 2017
    Kathryn J. Gillette, Pro Se
    Gregory A. Neibarger, Attorney, Jessica Elizabeth Whelan, Attorney, Bingham Greenebaum Doll, LLP, Indianapolis, IN, for Defendant-Appellee Gaming Entertainment
    Robin L. Babbitt, Attorney, Ice Miller LLP, Indianapolis, IN, for Defendants-Ap-pellees Indiana Gaming Company, LLC, LVGV, LLC
    Jane D. Wilson, Attorney, Matthew Evan Burkhart, Attorney, Anne K. Ricchi-uto, Attorney, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Indianapolis, IN, for Defendant-Appellee Belterra Resort, Indiana, LLC
    Scott Ernest Andres, Attorney, Due Doyle Fanning & Metzger, Indianapolis, IN, for Defendant-Appellee. Centaur, LLC
    Michael V. Brodarick, Attorney, Lloyd & McDaniel, PLC, Louisville, KY, for Defendant-Appellee Patrick J. Kilbum
    Before DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge
    
      
       We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not significantly aid the court. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
    
   ORDER

Kathryn Gillette defaulted on loans from eight casinos. Shé then sued the casinos, alleging violations of various consumer-protection laws. The district court dismissed Gillette’s claims, and she appeals.

We ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefs addressing the participation in bankruptcy of appellee RDI Caesars Riverboat Casino. After reviewing the supplemental briefs, this court has determined that the district court’s judgment of September 14, 2016, is nonfinal due to the bankruptcy of appellee RDI Caesars Riverboat Casino. See 11 U.S.C. § 362; Maritime Elec. Co., Inc. v. United Jersey Bank, 959 F.2d 1194, 1203-09 (3d Cir. 1991). This court therefore lacks jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court has not disposed of all claims by all parties. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); see also id.; see also Tradesman Int’l, Inc. v. Black, 724 F.3d 1004, 1006-07 (7th Cir. 2013). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of appellate jurisdiction.  